Casi: The number of dead archers:chariots is instructive. Good players tend to know pretty well what the odds are and have a good idea of the expectation value for the expected losses. Your numbers are more than two standard deviations from the mean at the first glance. Couple this with your phenomenal (so phenomenal I just don't think it is possible) previous game and too much "luck" is not explainable. Other little things like having a handy double gem location, stone and horses in the initial BFC (with your food source being pasture based to boot), plenty of land to settle, etc. are all also possible, but don't exactly scream typical play. Several of the key difficulties of deity have magically vanished due to your phenomenally "lucky" game.
This is particularly striking given the fact that there are EXTREMELY simple things you DON'T DO that would make your play stronger. For instance in your early save you don't have sailing so you can't trade via ports with the AI, you are 5 worker-turns from getting a road to Peter which will convert a number of your domestic trade routes into foreign ones - one
to two in all your cities. Worse, when you are teching pottery you are building a (for now) useless road through the jungle to the bananas instead.
It is okay to admit you were wrong, but the longer you keep on doing things that are ALWAYS showing phenomenal good "luck" in your games, the less likely your claims are to be believed.
Also, if you really want to make this a pissing contest about who knows better strategy outside of the game, think twice. First because MMORPG are about the bottom of the strategy tree (pretty much any raid ever can be completed with sufficient use of mass healers, a huge number of the roles do not require any thought, and often the most efficient strategy is to run through a large number of low odds runs to clear the place when you get lucky). Secondly, my real world strategy experience is likely superior to everyone else on the board combined (unless anyone else here has ever spent time inside of G3 or similar). If you really want to keep harping about your Evercrack experience, I'm going to start talking about honest war games with things like Harriers, Abrams, and Bradleys doing the shooting. I suggest you stick to Civ and demonstrate your strategic prowess there rather than starting a pissing contest outside of Civ which you will lose.
AT: Mostly it is hyperbole, but it can become surprisingly close as it all depends on the starting line and what you have to trade. For the best instance you decide to start a mounted war after having gunned down lit -> music (free GA to spawn a GA if you know what I mean)-> CS having nabbed the Parth and TGL. You are now set to mass bulb philo, paper, edu, and lib. Often you can trade for gunpowder and that just leaves nat, con, and mil trad to actually research; one of which comes off of lib. You can either lib nat and take a free GA off the taj or you can try to broker it with multiple trades and lib con. A bonus GA can make for a LOT of quick research and infra building (reducing the turns to get up Oxford and effectively reducing turn cost for mil trad and cons). Also of note in a town heavy game, getting to lib let's you vastly inflate your per turn. If we gunned knights from the beginning of the game, obviously we could get there first. But if the point of decision happens after we have a strong GSc bulb setup, the bulbs don't work on the guilds line, they muck up the liberalism bulb, and you can (in rare circumstances) end up only having to tech mil trad itself. If you lack strong trading partners (e.g. you can only trade one more tech before hitting WFYABTA), but have a strong marble/GSc setup, this sort of thing can actually work out. I haven't tried it, but I seem to recall that you can make this even more viable with a late GAr bulb of mil trad (I think the GAr can be made to bulb mil trad, but I rarely have those in that time frame).
Ultimately this sort of thing hinges upon the restrictions on GSc bulbs, the use of Lib, and the higher output possible via the pre-reqs from mil trad.
This is particularly striking given the fact that there are EXTREMELY simple things you DON'T DO that would make your play stronger. For instance in your early save you don't have sailing so you can't trade via ports with the AI, you are 5 worker-turns from getting a road to Peter which will convert a number of your domestic trade routes into foreign ones - one
to two in all your cities. Worse, when you are teching pottery you are building a (for now) useless road through the jungle to the bananas instead. It is okay to admit you were wrong, but the longer you keep on doing things that are ALWAYS showing phenomenal good "luck" in your games, the less likely your claims are to be believed.
Also, if you really want to make this a pissing contest about who knows better strategy outside of the game, think twice. First because MMORPG are about the bottom of the strategy tree (pretty much any raid ever can be completed with sufficient use of mass healers, a huge number of the roles do not require any thought, and often the most efficient strategy is to run through a large number of low odds runs to clear the place when you get lucky). Secondly, my real world strategy experience is likely superior to everyone else on the board combined (unless anyone else here has ever spent time inside of G3 or similar). If you really want to keep harping about your Evercrack experience, I'm going to start talking about honest war games with things like Harriers, Abrams, and Bradleys doing the shooting. I suggest you stick to Civ and demonstrate your strategic prowess there rather than starting a pissing contest outside of Civ which you will lose.
AT: Mostly it is hyperbole, but it can become surprisingly close as it all depends on the starting line and what you have to trade. For the best instance you decide to start a mounted war after having gunned down lit -> music (free GA to spawn a GA if you know what I mean)-> CS having nabbed the Parth and TGL. You are now set to mass bulb philo, paper, edu, and lib. Often you can trade for gunpowder and that just leaves nat, con, and mil trad to actually research; one of which comes off of lib. You can either lib nat and take a free GA off the taj or you can try to broker it with multiple trades and lib con. A bonus GA can make for a LOT of quick research and infra building (reducing the turns to get up Oxford and effectively reducing turn cost for mil trad and cons). Also of note in a town heavy game, getting to lib let's you vastly inflate your
per turn. If we gunned knights from the beginning of the game, obviously we could get there first. But if the point of decision happens after we have a strong GSc bulb setup, the bulbs don't work on the guilds line, they muck up the liberalism bulb, and you can (in rare circumstances) end up only having to tech mil trad itself. If you lack strong trading partners (e.g. you can only trade one more tech before hitting WFYABTA), but have a strong marble/GSc setup, this sort of thing can actually work out. I haven't tried it, but I seem to recall that you can make this even more viable with a late GAr bulb of mil trad (I think the GAr can be made to bulb mil trad, but I rarely have those in that time frame).Ultimately this sort of thing hinges upon the restrictions on GSc bulbs, the use of Lib, and the higher output possible via the pre-reqs from mil trad.
to build the mids twice on chariots). You realize that the odds were more favourable to your claims back when I assumed you were just killing 2/3rds of the units yourself.
