18-10-2003 19:40									#1
	Making Ron Fun Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

IMO, I think that time in between ages should be longer this way is isnt just a rush to industral or enlightment i think it would allow for alot more startgies too.

	19-10-2003 08:41									#2
	Put an end to popups!

i think there should be more time spent in one age i think right now its just a rush to who get to industral or englightment quickest.

	19-10-2003 12:59									#3
	Put an end to popups!

It's not really like that in multiplayer, but you can always set research to very expensive/slow.

	19-10-2003 15:49									#4
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by HalfLotus It's not really like that in multiplayer, but you can always set research to very expensive/slow.

Actually, you can't!
The reason is that the A.I becomes horrible when using expensive/slow research. Mainly they fails to build wonders.

-s

	19-10-2003 17:25									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

accutaly it is like that in multiplayer

	19-10-2003 23:13									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

In multiplayer, people boom to later ages by choice, not by necessity. Early attacks are quite powerful, but few people use them so everyone thinks it's a boomer's game *cough*O4B*cough*.

There's lots of info about Ancient, Classical, and Medieval attacks at this site and others. Try them out, you'll be surprised at how effective they are.

True the AI does suck with very expensive/slow.

	20-10-2003 02:00									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i have looked at other sites i visit them all, i dont find any of them effective there is too many defenses like attrition, towers with archers, or just archers, plus if u rush and dont get capital you over with my as well resign

	21-10-2003 12:55									#8
	Tired of ads?

They work quite well in my experience. I've never lost using the Ancient rush (20+ games), and have only lost once, to a playtester, using a Medieval attack (40+ games). I'm no expert player, it's just that 90% of the people on gamespy don't build military until the 10 minute mark or later. Even if they do, very few know how to hold off an early rush or attack. Early attacks are grossly underrated in RoN.

	18-11-2003 21:48									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

in the high rated games 1850+ rating you get alot of boomer's. I alway fight with the french and they are a gunpowder/enlightment civ so I start fighting in gunpowder but you build a fortress behind your city and some towers. That can really slow me down even if I take one city he can just build a new one if he has fortress all along his line you cant even go around him if he slows you down for 3 to 5 mins your die 100%. Boomers are a ugggg. Ancient age rushs dont work well for the most part anymore just need a tower in your cap. Classical is silly couse I will be gunpowder by the time you take a city I will make a new city then take my old one back lol you just got me a free city my gun men will eat your inf alive and my heavy calv will eat ever think they dont get.

	31-12-2003 00:36									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Seems to me that the simple solution is to tweak the AI to work well under expensive/slow and very expensive/slow research conditions. I know I'd never play any other way if that were fixed.

	02-01-2004 22:08									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Attacking early in the game holds more risks, but also more rewards. Early attacks require more micromanagement in order to succeed, and therefore the majority of the players aren't willing to try it. The better players you go up against, the sooner the fighting will start.

Playing passively to Gunpowder Age and beyond is only a "feel safe" way to play and try to win, but by no means is it "fail-safe".

	04-01-2004 23:24									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Once Maya and Spain are out of the way, offensive nations will be deadly. Most folks don't know how to attack efficiently, but I assure you it can be done with success. LongAxe play a good french player and see if you get to gunpowder before they take a city. Check the french 150 and roman medieval attack replays at RoN Universe to see how its done.

edit: added link

edit more: as far as booming, it's exactly what everyone expects, which is why I dont like it. players get lots of experience with booming to gunpowder then fighting a grind it out war along the border, but I can't tell you how many 2k+ players have lost all composure when I show up with a big siege army in classical or medieval. Best way to beat a good player is to take him out of his comfort zone. Man I can't wait til Maya gets nerfed.

Last edited by HalfLotus on 04-01-2004 at 23:36

	05-01-2004 02:50									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Actually, I've been playing as many people as I can who use Maya just so I can get some good practices in before they get nerfed. It's such a challenge to go against them (but still very annoying)! I don't even mind losing to them as long as I understand my mistakes. But beating them is like no other feeling, even winning a 2vs2 against good players gone 2vs1 (or sometimes even a 3vs3 gone 3vs1) doesn't even compare when beating a good Maya player (unless one of them was Maya).

I have to agree with HalfLotus. I've been playing many 2k+ players, and early attacks do seem to fluster them. Even the PCA players, who are known for their early aggressive games (but mostly through raiding), are easily beaten by a good heavy Classical/Medieval assaults. Heck, before I was even known, most experts used to laugh when people Ancient Age rushed them, but not anymore.

Many good players have come up with good Nation Strategies, and they've proven very effective. I tend to try and come up with all-round strategies any Nation can use, but certain Nations tend to be better off with the other strategies. The great thing about that is you can't get too comfortable knowing just one strategy. You need to keep your opponent(s) guessing.

For instance, if your opponent is French, you're thinking, okay... the French 150 is coming... so you plan to boom fast and get some Heavy Infantry with Heavy Cavalry and Foot Archers as early as you can when hitting Classical to stop the HC raids and the oncoming assault. But a 2nd option could be to attack them earlier with a Kamikaze Rush or even a Delayed Power Rush (however with the French extra Timber bonus, expect them to counter your Rush adequately). Next thing you know, the guy Kamikaze rushes you instead! Even if you manage to fend it off, you're still going to have to worry about that darn French 150. =)

Anyways, the Spanish will still be a mid-tier, or still even a top tier if they do get nerfed. I doubt BHG will make too drastic a change with them. But who knows? There's a whole new playtest team to give them their feedback. When I was there, most of the playtesters hated my idea of nerfing the Spanish Ruin bonus to where they are at now. They didn't think they were that strong!

After the fix, the Chinese will be very tough to beat, and they may become the current Maya-like Nation once the changes come about. However, it will be close with the French being a good counter-Nation against them (it's better to have a #2 beat the #1, while #3 or #4 beat #2, and #1 beats all of the rest). The Mongols are always in the loop with their powerful early raiding (but that's all they really have).

I think the majority of the people will like the changes. Right now you got Maya #1, beating every nation out there. You have the Spanish as #2, beating everyone but the Maya. However, you have Chinese as #3, and a good counter-Nation towards the Spanish if they can manage to play aggressively and survive the strong early HC raiding.

The Spanish unchanged but only the Maya getting nerfed would still be alright in my book. You can't really Kamikaze rush the Top Tier Nations (Maya, Spanish, Chinese, French, Mongols, Koreans), and that's part of what makes them the better Nations. Also the fact that even though you know what's coming (Maya lame strat, Spanish HC raid to Gunpowder assault, Chinese border push to Medieval assault, French 150 with HC raid and Classical assault, Mongol 1:30 Classical with a 2:30 4 HA raid...) chances are you're not going to stop it unless you play perfectly (or the other guy messes up).

	05-01-2004 06:50									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

i have been lately trying to attack medevil age and it was going fine until i matched up againest a 1950 rated person with my rating of 1890. I decided to try a strat i had been working on my korean medival attack.
It started out fine i captured his 3rd city, and was seiging his second he had no miltarty. But all of a sudden he comes out goes gp and comes out and kills my army and wins the game. To say the less i was frustated. I still think the game is too defensive and good players can beat off an early attack by booming.
Here is the game maybe u can give me some tips

I am Iwillroxyou

Attachment: 01-04 iwillroxyou(kor), u96(jap) @rlm.zip
This has been downloaded 20 time(s).

	05-01-2004 07:38									#15
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I watched the game...your execution was good except for a couple of things.

1- Go for the second city. Second city is always a bigger economic center than the third. Second city has 5 farms....you can destroy his food income....when you destroy his food income you take his wood and metal income with it. It is rule number one for an early attack, capture an economic city. I've been preaching this for lord knows how long.

I've had success going for the capitol on Himalayas (which this game was on) since many players build to the side for their second city. I think if you had captured his second city you could have won easily...no way he would have enough food for arques and HI.

2- Resource spending. Don't get so many temples...thats a lot of timber (110+140). Temples are mainly defensive buildings, you don't really need them with aggressive strats. You also built a forward tower when you didn't need it...you had plenty of offensive momentum. If you wanna build a tower to protect raids, do that. Also you can do a good medieval attack with 2 cities instead of 3. A strong medieval attack comes no later than 11 minutes...yours was around 12 because you spent some resources unneccessarily.

Now there are many kinds of medieval attacks...some build more economy than others (see rush type strats vs boom type strats). The kind I prefer is build to your cap (150) asap then hit hard with maximum military with an eye to knowledge so you don't get outteched. With this type of attack you MUST take an economic city to maximize your chances for victory. It's too easy for the defender to recover from losing the third city.

Korea has a very good medieval attack so I'd stick with them. Your army and siege use was better than most...though you got outmicroed in the deciding battle.....looked like you did a Move command into this city radius in an attempt to take his city. Always do attack move, your guys were walking without shooting back.

Good luck next time, I promise it works! =)

Last edited by HalfLotus on 05-01-2004 at 08:16

	05-01-2004 11:29									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

That was a nice attack. You had the game won.

1. Even though it wasn't neccessary, it's good to raid before an assault. Usually a single HA and HC is all you need for the enemy to start building a Tower and some Cavalry. Raid near the Capital. This draws your opponent's attention while you're engaging in your frontal battle.

2. After taking that 3rd City, you could have positioned your units defensively until that city was assimilated and gone up to Gunpowder Age yourself. It's good to start an attack early, but you don't win by staying in that age. You have to keep advancing, because your opponent will. You have to realize that instead of building more Foot Archers and Heavy Infantry, you should start making Light Infantry to get upgraded to Arquebusiers when Gunpowder Age hits.

3. Don't rush in to take City after City in Medieval Age. Like I said, you could have gone up to Gunpowder Age to continue the attack. Instead, fortify your army at the taken City, and then build another Barracks, Stables, and Siege in that city. Once that happens, you can forward build a Tower at your convenience, but usually it's not necessary. This quickly reinforces your army for your next assault. Deleting your old Barracks, Stables, and Siege are optional, but I leave them as a back-up in case I get backdoored with a last ditch Capital attack, or use them to upgrade my troops while my other military buildings make my troops.

Optional Suggestion: When you scouted forward where your 3rd City was eventually placed, you could have placed your 2nd City there instead. For Timber, you build another WoodCutter's Camp in your Capital, and another at your 2nd City, where a 4 or 5 man spot was possible. Usually and early attack consists of 150 or 200, and if you end up needing more, you'll usually have your 4th City up you could place just for the extra Timber. What this ends up doing is enabling a more aggressive border push, so when you start your original attack, you have less distance to travel to reinforce your fighting army.

	05-01-2004 12:06									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I say press your military advantage as long as you have it. No reason to sit around assimilating if you can continue sieging his stuff. After taking the third city he was basically even in economy....so he assimilates the city and ends up even...not so great.

If you take the second city you'll be in better shape...but you still want press the attack as long as possible. Why sit around with your seige army if you have the military advantage?

Flash did a good job of pressing his advantage. And he went Gunpowder right around the time his opponent did. It was a gunpowder vs gunpowder fight that decided it, so you can't fault him for slow teching. He (flash) was pretty good about his knowledge and teching, but bad micro cost him in the final battle.

Basically he didn't do enough damage economically to gain an advantage....taking the second city will almost always give you a significant economic advantage; at which point victory becomes quite easy.

edit: one reason why capturing a city and sitting around to assimliate doesn't work is ramping costs. Your opponent can rebuild lost structures cheaper than you can build your advantage over him. Any battlefield advantage you have must be exploited quickly and with maximum destruction, especially when using your seige. Flash did a good job of pressing the advantage, I see many players sit around to assimilate and lose any advatange they might have gained....this replay is a good example of how you can lose a game by not pressing your military advatange.

Do the exact same thing next time and take his second city, I can almost assure victory so long as they aren't Maya or Korea.

Last edited by HalfLotus on 05-01-2004 at 12:17

	05-01-2004 12:15									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It's just argumentative at this point. Of course it's always better to target 1. the Capital, 2. the 2nd City, then 3. the 3rd City. Of course if you have the military advantage, it's good to press the attack. It's just not always neccessary.

At this point, the defensive player is planning ahead on his next execution of counter-attack. He knows he can't take back his city with a concurrent Age army. If you know you can't follow through with your current army, you have to meet that next step with some careful planning of your own.

Flash did do a good job, but for me, I would have waited to set up my new military outpost in that taken city, and gone up to Gunpowder a good 2 to 4 minutes earlier (not at the same time or slower) than the other guy. Once your attack is renewed at that point, most players resign because they know it's over at that point.

Economic damage isn't necessary if your attacks are putting pressure on your opponent. Military strength will overcome any economic advantage in a tight situation.

Edit: Hehe, I can show you a hundred replays against 2k+ players where I wait to assimilate the opponent's outer city and then press the attack an age up, while you can show the same with when you press your attack. I'm not saying your wrong HalfLotus, I just want to point out other options that are just as good. The only difference being preference. I still hold to my motto that earlier attacks hold more risks, but bigger rewards. I guess I'm no Stonewall Jackson, but at least I won't get shot and killed by my own men. =)

	05-01-2004 12:37									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Exactly, there are many paths to victory, it's what makes RoN great. =)

Generally if you execute a full scale attack like this (ie- before the standard gunpowder age fighting), you have sacrificed economy and tech (knowledge) to execute it. It's rare that you can tech faster than your opponent with this kind of attack....usually you're lucky to stay even in the tech race because your opponent was booming while you were making an army. If you know how to make a large siege army AND tech ahead of a boomer, please share. =)

Because of this I rely on hurting their economy as much as possible with the initial assault, and pressing the military advantage as long as possible....meanwhile you keep your knowledge as high as possible so you can at least stay even in tech. Against equal opponents its not simply a matter of "teching to gun faster"....you have to work for it.

In this particular game, he had taken the outer city and was basically even in economy, tech, and military (IIRC). He has secured almost no advantage with the attack. What good does that do? By sitting around to assimilate he's basically starting from scratch.

edit: players these days are smart. when they lose a city theyll rebuild quickly and cheaper than you can build on them...taking the third city will give a minimal advantage at best. The BHS game 1 between Shadowz and Frogman is a good example of this.

Last edited by HalfLotus on 05-01-2004 at 12:55

	05-01-2004 13:22									#20
	Got spare money?

It would have been nice to have had more aggressive playtesters when playtesting this game. I think there was a good balance of playstyle with the "fab four" playtesters including Axehilt, who was our lead. Out of all of us, I was the most aggressive, though... me! Lol.

Axehilt was the next most aggessive, then CP, Ryan, and Kleitus was the boomer. The "bruise crew" Impossible Creatures team that later joined us were much more aggressive than me, but they didn't have the knowledge of when to be aggressive, and when not to.

Anyways, getting to know the playtesters and have actual conversations with each other day-to-day was great. We all agreed on the problems, but we each had different opinions on the solutions. That was the most difficult thing to agree on. We both share the same knowledge of the problem, but have different solutions on how to amend them.

HalfLotus, if you can see me play in person, I can easily share you how to manage a large siege army and boom ahead at the same time, but via online, it's tough enough to teach people how to even boom, much less build an army.

Even though Military and Economy are important considerations, you must not forget Positioning. Border pushing is just a variation of Positioning, but like Chess, your focus is gaining control of the middle, because that's where the strength of movement lies. It's a war of attrition strategy, not just a war of conquest one.

	05-01-2004 22:51									#21
	Got spare money?

Yeah I know Axe from Bnet. He's a standup guy and a damn fine RTS player. Oh how I would love to have playtested RoN.

Anyways, as far as booming+seige army. I'm speaking from a resource standpoint. It's simply not possible (afaik) to make decent sized siege army and boom at the same rate as a booming player. It's basic math as I see it. If you start making significant military before your booming opponent, he will have a resource or tech lead. It's up to you to leverage your military advantage in a way that will destroy his economic lead.

I feel like I'm oversimplifying with that statement, but the central notion of early attacking is to close the economic gap with maximum destruction. And ramping costs works heavily in favor of a defender. That's why I've been adamant about a) taking the second city or capitol, and b) pressing military advantage as long as is possible. Going for the third city and/or sitting around to assimilate is a waste of a damn fine siege army.

That's not to say you should stop growing your econ/tech. Use your present military advantage while growing your econ/tech at the same time. It's a resource balancing act at that point. I've written extensively about it here and at RoNU.

And yes, positioning is always important, no doubt about it. Not sure where that came from, but it reminds of something:

I like to push a "bulge" into my opponents territory, like a little thumb. You can apply all of your forces at two separate spots (either side of the bulge) while your opponent must split his forces between the two spots, or run back and forth with his whole army. If you create a bulge between two cities, you can put a lot of pressure on the opponent. That doesn't have much to do with this topic, just thought I'd share.

Last edited by HalfLotus on 05-01-2004 at 23:25

	05-01-2004 23:19									#22
	Re: Making Ron Fun Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by flash9286 IMO, I think that time in between ages should be longer this way is isnt just a rush to industral or enlightment i think it would allow for alot more startgies too.

nah, I think the age changes are fine... btw, one can simply play a certain age if you want to

	05-01-2004 23:48									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In resource terms, just taking an empty 3rd City can cause serious booming disruption for your enemy. He loses 110 Food and 110 Timber, and needs another 110 Food and another 110 Timber for another 3rd City. Add that in to the fact that if he did build... his 3rd University (100 Timber and 70 Wealth) 2 more Farms (around 150 Timber) a Temple (80 Timber), plus the possibility of any Mines or WoodCutter's Camps, it all adds up. Not only that, they can only have 1 Caravan on a trade route and only 2 Universities until their 3rd City goes up.

I guess it's just my personal theory that any attack/raid that causes your opponent to waste resources on un-needed defenses hurt your opponent more. The reason for my Kamikaze Rushes is that even with a slow start, I can cause my enemy to be on the defensive while I micro my small attack army while freely booming. 2 Foot Archers are expensive in Ancient Age, and vulnerable to Slingers. The only thing that keeps them safe is micro-garrisoning them to a further position. If that's the case, you can easily blockade their Capital with Slingers and choose to get their 2nd City instead. It may not be as good as taking the Capital, but it does merit repercussions on the opposition's resource income.

Also, he who builds an attacking army first, has a better chance of getting more ruins from their "travel" towards the enemy's territory. A defensive army has to stay put... and thus doesn't get a good chance to explore.

Lol, it's just me, really. I get excited if I raid and manage to take out a farm with slinger raids using the Aztecs. Remember, you also get raze bonuses and sack bonuses that help you out as well when you're attacking. There are many advantages to attacking, but the major disadvantage is failing.

	06-01-2004 00:50									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You already said the second city is a better idea, why are ya still lobbying for the third?

Seriously though, a Classical/Medieval siege army costs well over 1000 in resources. An empty third city costs them 110/110 to rebuild (he doesn't "lose resources" he simply has to rebuild for 110/110). He also misses out on +10/+10 for a few moments. Serious disruption? That's not even close to breaking even in terms of resources.

Usually a third city will have a Temple, Uni and maybe 1 farm. Raze and sack bonuses will be minimal with the third city. It's not near enough to make up for the high cost of a siege army. Again lets say you start making your army at 9 minutes and arrive at 11-12. Thats 2-3 minutes of your opponent's booming you have to make up for.

Second city always has five farms, and a usually a Market and Uni. The caravan and Uni restrictions apply to taking the second city as well as the third.

Using a Class/Med siege army to take the third city against a good opponent is a waste of time and effort. Let alone sitting around to assimilate it. I'd like to see a couple games where you do that and win. I'm willing to bet that either a) your opponent resonded poorly or b) the attack wasn't what won you the game. Taking the third city is more like a "break even" tactic, taking the second city is a knockout punch in most cases.

	06-01-2004 01:09									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

LOL!

I like the third city because it reminds me of turd!
I prefer slowly rolling people so they lose all hope of the impending doom that is sure to come! No, really, if you take an enemy's 2nd City, it's pretty much over, and pressing an attack on their Capital pretty much gives you the win.

Honestly though, even when computing resource differences between the aggressor and defender (on the 3rd City dilemna), you also have to account for the defender also spending well over 1000 resources to counter-attack. If the defender doesn't overcome the aggressor and take back their 3rd city quick enough, then they will eventually have to start making Siege just to take it back. That leaves less room for actual troops and leaves no out for the defender, except to hope to outboom while building a defensive-only army. What you actually "want" is for the defender to start making Siege, because at that point, you're booming and making more military. If the more aggressive assault fails for the agressor, then the attack accomplishes nothing.

Stop this argument already! I've beaten GREAT opponents by taking out their 3rd Cities, even their 4th Cities! Sheesh, I'll have to sort through my recs now. =(

Pooh... I've got heartburn... lol.

	06-01-2004 01:36									#26
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

At Apolyton no quarter is given to mere Settlers.

Seems you missed the point though. A smart player will let the third city go without a fight, and rebuild for cheap somewhere else. Making siege to take back a Small City with a Temple and Uni, yeah right!

Yes they have to make a comparable army to defend themselves, but they don't need seige, and they have spent more time booming than you (2-3 mins typically). This gives them a significant resource advantage which is best dealt with by capturing the second city! Take that! Wappow! Zam!

Last edited by HalfLotus on 06-01-2004 at 01:44

	06-01-2004 02:11									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well, with words like Wappow and Zam! A Prince you are not!

I've been looking through my recs, and I realize that my early Classical/Medieval Age attacks are towards their 2nd City because they don't even have a 3rd City up yet! Not only that, but I seem to Raid before I attack, causing them to forgoe any booming and go anti-raiding defensive.

Anyhow, it's okay if a supposed good player gives me their 3rd City without a fight. I get a free 4th City, and still get to press my attack.

Ok, Whippo Bam Kapow! You don't "let" a person boom because you're early raiding them with HA and HC before you start your Siege attack. That slows them down enough where they can't significantly outboom you, and you have better positioning and cut off their Caravan trading routes for the extra Wealth from killing their Caravans!

P.S. I'm still looking through all my damn recs. I've got thousands of recs, I'm bound to find a game that proves my point! I've got great 2vs1's, 3vs1's, and great rush Victories, but still nada on the prada!

	06-01-2004 02:53									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well the raiding can go either way. I could say that the opponent will raid you and slow your attack. Raiding is so common among good players that's its a toss up as to whether you gain an advantage from it.

quote: Anyhow, it's okay if a supposed good player gives me their 3rd City without a fight. I get a free 4th City, and still get to press my attack.

You can press your attack, but the time wasted on the third city will probabaly prevent you from taking any more. While you spent time sieging the third city, he's building a fort+towers at his major cities.

For anyone interested, there's about 50 replays at Apolyton and RoNU showing Classical/Medieval attacks by yours truly. They illustrate my point quite well, and should tide you over until El Cap can come up with just 1.

	06-01-2004 03:04									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

BAH! You better not egg me on HL, or I shall wreak furious vengeance upon thee!

I tell ye, hold your horses, let them graze on the pasture, and when you're ready, off to the races!!! The 3rd City is a magical City. It breaks the triangle. Remember, the key to putting out a fire is taking away just "one" of the key ingredients necessary for a fire to survive!

In all fairness, I should mention that it is better off with the opponent you're aggressively attacking to spend early resources trying to raid you. It actually helps your attack!

	06-01-2004 04:22									#30
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

@ breaking magical triangles. I think that'll be a winning condition for the xpac: break three spiffy triangles to start the timer. Zoom!