Why the english AREN'T the best for domination!

[Kev]

@MKElderGod:

OK, had a look at some of your other posts to see if you are this rude to just me or to everyone. I see that you have a long lineup of self-aggrandizing, immature, and often offensive comments made throughout the forums. Too bad.

I also see that you feel that everyone in the world plays MP and that all strategies and comments should be made through that prism. That's not the case, and in this one specifically I am speaking from the standpoint of single player with Deity AI's (which seem to have bonuses well beyond the human player at the early stage of the game). Yes, the AI can play stupidly, especially when it deals with warfare, but at the early stages their bonuses can lead to an early tech and expansion advantage - making the English knights strategy a bit more difficult to pull off.

Not saying that one is right over the other (as you are fond of doing), but that in my experience the strategy I prefer and have found great success with is different. Yes, in MP it is likely NOT the best way - I would not know as I've done played MP and therefore cannot comment. I still want to try getting knights early a bit more as well to see if there was something I had missed in my earlier attempts, so who knows if my thoughts will change - but for now I think I make a fairly good argument for the situation I am considering (Deity, DS, SP).

I have to assume that you are a young child with feeble social graces at this stage and encourage you to discourse more rather than name call (by the way, it's "noob" not "nub"). And to study your spelling (I think you are from the US, but if English is your second language I will apologize). I don't say this in a mean way, but if you want people to take you at all seriously it's important.

Hope we can debate more on these boards and that you will eventually learn to respect others and their opinions.

 

[MKElderGod]

You still dont understand that knights work better than rexing in Sp diety and mp king than rexing. For one main reason being you have knights in the ancient era. From my experience on sp diety I almost everytime take 2 civs out and cripple one. Also taking that amount of cities from someone is a whole lot better because you elminate comptetion while taking devloped cities. Where as when you rex youll have to fight everyone at the peak of the game. That wont be easy even with double naval support.


if you have the oppurtunity to attack twice why would only attack once.

 

[damnation]

@MKElderGod:

OK, had a look at some of your other posts to see if you are this rude to just me or to everyone. I see that you have a long lineup of self-aggrandizing, immature, and often offensive comments made throughout the forums. Too bad.

I also see that you feel that everyone in the world plays MP and that all strategies and comments should be made through that prism. That's not the case, and in this one specifically I am speaking from the standpoint of single player with Deity AI's (which seem to have bonuses well beyond the human player at the early stage of the game). Yes, the AI can play stupidly, especially when it deals with warfare, but at the early stages their bonuses can lead to an early tech and expansion advantage - making the English knights strategy a bit more difficult to pull off.

Not saying that one is right over the other (as you are fond of doing), but that in my experience the strategy I prefer and have found great success with is different. Yes, in MP it is likely NOT the best way - I would not know as I've done played MP and therefore cannot comment. I still want to try getting knights early a bit more as well to see if there was something I had missed in my earlier attempts, so who knows if my thoughts will change - but for now I think I make a fairly good argument for the situation I am considering (Deity, DS, SP).

I have to assume that you are a young child with feeble social graces at this stage and encourage you to discourse more rather than name call (by the way, it's "noob" not "nub"). And to study your spelling (I think you are from the US, but if English is your second language I will apologize). I don't say this in a mean way, but if you want people to take you at all seriously it's important.

Hope we can debate more on these boards and that you will eventually learn to respect others and their opinions.

Realy? I think that just because Mkeldergod has a good arguent to counter yours, you feel as if you have to bully him. Realy says something about your security. I've found that if you have a single knight army, you can take over most citys from a civalization, and just take their capital after that. Besides, if you get behind in tech, just attack the spanish(if they're in the game) build a galien, and find atlantis. If you find knights templer, you get tanks, even if you just got knights, and that can be a big advantage.
From my experiance, the english are the best domination civalization in the game, yes, even better then the zulu and aztec, and i realy dont see why you would rex early and attack later, when the english are capible of early domanation.

 

[Kev]

Sigh.

@damnation - I was not going after MK's argument but rather his presentation. I thought he was unnecessarily rude and put that out there. The writing aspect (spelling, etc) WAS more of a dig, but it does reflect on any written argument that you are trying to make I think - as it affects yours. Again, I looked back and saw that many of his other posts were like this, and asked that HE try debating rather than calling people who don't agree with him "nubs" and then challenging them to an MP game.

I've been trying the early knights as I said I would, and I found that for me it still takes the right set-up to be 100% effective. Too much land in-between and it slows things down fairly quickly.

To his credit, his last reply was reasonable and left off with the other stuff. With that...

@MK - I totally understand your point about eliminating early competition - it's a viable strategy in Civ IV as well since "land is power". In a sense, I do that too with REXing whereby my early cities are established to block expansion by the AI. The AI is not so good at using a galley to get around this - though they can sometimes settle islands - and so it's a workable play to keep them at bay.

Whatever the case, I can see where the early knights work and can be an interesting way to get a very early finish should it pay off. I still am not convinced that should it fail that you are in a better place compared to REXing - though any game is pretty much salvageable where the AI is involved. With REXing and putting a major emphasis on gold (with some science, yes), I find that I take on the civs with tanks/planes while they have pikes or just barely into rifles. In this way, my armies are more numerous, I can work with the awesome naval support, and I don't have to worry about a cruddy dice roll that might set me back.

So, in essence, for me the early knights will mean either a very early win or a later win compared to REXing. With REXing I seem to remain consistent in the time frame of wins.

A quick beeline to combustion is possible as I go for navigation early and stalk Atlantis with the more powerful sea-going vessels, and by the time the early mid-game is here I can usually buy whatever I need. With more cities, I can rush buy several armies of superior units quickly. Having the "first-to" bonuses and economic goal bonuses just steamrolls and the cash will allow me to purchase wonders right off too. Nice to get Leo's this way, and last game bought the Trade Fair, East India, Oxford and the Military Complex along with it (the latter was overkill).

So I don't argue that the English should not ignore the domination victory - I just choose to get there in a different way.

An interesting debate to be sure, and I'll keep trying at the early knights to see if I can improve on my efforts there. One thing you had stated in an earlier post was that you just went with three techs to start (Bronze, Horse, Feud), but also stated that you rushed a library. Can you describe your early set up a bit more?

 

[caketastydelish]

I personally don't think the fact that the english can do this is such a bad thing. The Aztecs/Germans pwn at military, so its good that someone besides them can have a nice advantage.

If only one or two civs had a great military strategy the game wouldn't be fun. Imagine a game of four where you have the aztecs with there healing, the germans with there veterans, the english with there navy + knight rush, and some other one.