You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.35 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Sioux?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Sioux?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
DeaconFeral
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 03:43 PM EDT (US)         
First off, this is my first post here so I'd like to start by saying hello to everyone.

I'm asking about the constant complaints about the Sioux. Every time I use them I get called a lamer but I really don't see how they are so "OP". What bothers me the most is that in 1.03 no one said a word, but with 1.04 its like they got completely changed. As far as I know all they got was:

-100 extra starting food (oMg!!!!11one)
-cheaper bow riders (which is nice but irrelevant)
-Dog Soldiers spawn slightly faster ( Sioux late game isn't their strong point anyways)

And to top it off, their most likely unit to be spammed actually got a range nerf. So I'm really just curious why all of a sudden these tiny things make them so amazing where they weren't before? It's likely that my opinion is biased I suppose since I DO play with them, but some outside opinions would be fantastic.

Thanks for your time.
AuthorReplies:
Killa4life
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 04:07 PM EDT (US)     1 / 35       
Sioux were never a weak civ. They were always good-powerful. People just didnt realize it that much.

and while you say "-100 extra starting food (oMg!!!!11one)"
as if it didnt man much, it actually boosted them a LOT. Not only did their FF time get boosted significantly, no, their rush and their rush defense also improved a lot.

On top of that, the wakina "nerf" didnt really mean anything at all, with the WC speed boost the range nerf doesnt affect gaemplay whatsoever.

Another boost to sioux was actually the cav boost - Sioux have some of the best cavs out there [with WC and all] and the popular AR/wakina spam ff/semi ff got improved a lot. The only other civs that tend to have lots of cav are france (their most used cav unit, cuirs, didnt get boosted at all) and germany (german uhlans are still nothing special whereas ARs were always good).

now you might ask "why" they are so lame now?

A few things:

>noobified civ (no houses etc)
>OP units (wakinas are a LOT better than e.g. skirms per cost, even considering sioux slightly weaker eco)
>very annoying features such as super fast cav
>cav that catches you but that you can never catch
>ARs that beat their Ranged cav counters because theyre so fast
>warclubs that beat their counters, RI (mainly xbows), because of their speed in age2
>stupid attack dance (ftw, both have equally strong armies I attack dance BBQ you gg no re)
>stupid siege dance (hah, i have only wakinas and no siege but your tc dies in 15 secs anyway muahaha)

And basically all of that got boosted by cav boost+100f. Sioux was always an annoying civ while being strong, now theyre OP and annoying. Go figure why people hate you for using them.
DeaconFeral
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 04:34 PM EDT (US)     2 / 35       
I don't get it. I see where you're coming from but it makes very little sense to me.

ALL the things you just listed were there before. I refuse to believe 100 food and cav boost that every cav got bumps them from strong to OP. OP is a pretty strong word.

Any other thoughts on this?
CunniJA
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 05:05 PM EDT (US)     3 / 35       
Don't forget +10% War Club Hand Resistance, it makes a significant difference. Also, the 100 food crate is huge, it makes Colonial time way faster.

A_S: "Cunni's pic wins thread otherwise failing due to being 5-7 years behind the times."
"Brilliant cunni simply brilliant"
C_MAG: "CunniJA's post is epic win."
ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 05:48 PM EDT (US)     4 / 35       
100 food is what makes the most difference. it speeds up age up by 10 seconds or so, very significant in most cases.

AR boost gives quite a decent boost to their rush, 4+3 now can kill more LI and last longer to TC and tower fire.

Warclub boost makes very very little difference, since most of the time warclubs are killed by ranged attack, it ever so slightly reduces their casualty when you use massed warclub to overwhelm LI.

Bowrider cost reduction doesnt make a huge difference, except it now gives their colonial game more option, which is a nice welcome and more variety always mean harder for opp to guess.

above small changes combined, it turns into a significant change.

wakina nerf can definitely be felt. if it werent for their colonial boost, this would have done quite some damage to their fortress game. WC speed up is overrated, sioux WC dies the easiest out of the lot
Ender_Ward
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 06:23 PM EDT (US)     5 / 35       
I don't get it. I see where you're coming from but it makes very little sense to me.
Don't worry. It doesn't make any sense to anyone outside a very small but extremely vocal minority.

Remember that Killa4life is Dopple.

This is the guy who played Dutch and Iroquois in 1.03 and is on record saying they're "not that overpowered".

This is also the guy who lamed the hell out of Iroquois and Dutch, two very skill-intensive civs (LOL), and yet calls Sioux "n00bified" ...

The guy who freaked out over Sioux boosts right after the patch came out, made three dozen threads and five times as many posts about the "OP Sioux" ... without playing a single game of 1.04 at the time. Until the very people who earlier agreed with him told him outright to shut up. The fanaticism and hypocrisy were getting that annoying.

So I'll leave you to decide for yourself whether or not to take the guy seriously.

As for Sioux, did they get a boost? Absolutely.

I played a few 1.04 games during the past week as practice before TAD came out, and the only boosts of any consequence are the 15 second faster age up time and the ranged resistance boost for Axe Riders.
The former has little effect on FF capability, but what it actually does is make Sioux less of a rushing magnet than they were before (and they were ridiculously vulnerable to good rushes, having to resort to such lame strats as spamming hard counter-less pets, because normal units simply didn't work).

The Axe Rider ranged resistance boost is shared with all cavalry that received it. And what it means is that now you aren't automatically forced to resort to spamming Warclubs at Crossbow masses. Now you can actually use the units you're meant to, and they will actually work. But we can't have that, right? That's "OP". *rolls eyes*

The rest of the boosts are of no consequence. And the Wakina nerf hurt enough that one can't use them to fight other Skirmishers with the same effectiveness anymore. Now one needs cavalry (which I used anyway, back in 1.03). Oh, right, I forgot, Axe Riders are overpowered now. Oh well, let's throw snowballs at the enemy then! Back in 1.03, Axe Riders were just about as effective against mass LI ...

Anyway, as I said in another thread, who cares what somebody called you? Do you have fun playing Sioux? Then keep at it. Don't let anyone dictate to you how to enjoy the game you paid for.

"One wants to be loved, failing that admired, failing that feared, failing that hated and despised. One wants to instill in other people some form of emotion. The soul shudders before emptiness and wants contact, no matter the cost."
CookieCrisp13
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 06:37 PM EDT (US)     6 / 35       
here here!

(not gonna lie though, i was a sioux player before i got TAD)

Proud winner of the FFA Winter Round '07!
[Judgε][Epic Thread]
My Vods:[One] [Two][Three][Four]
"with all the bling on a mandsabar you could win the game by paying the enemy to resign." IL
nta3329
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 07:06 PM EDT (US)     7 / 35       
it's OP, but not too OP

PERU////////PERU PERU////////PERU PERU////////PERU
THE WONDERFULL COUNTRY
MACHUPICCHU////// MACHUPICCHU ///// MACHUPICCHU
visit
http://travel.peru.com/travel/english/
RawMustard
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 08:11 PM EDT (US)     8 / 35       
Because they're are a gay civ. Killa4life pretty much summed it up but forgot two of the gayest bonus's. The gay war chief power owning cannons making them absolutely useless and axe rider to musket rider card totally screwing your counter army. And lets not forget their cav speed is just absolute bullshit.

They are without doubt the most bullshit, gayest, frustrating civ to play against. Hence if you play them you're a gay lamer, HTH!
JimXIX
Kings Guard
posted 10-26-07 08:36 PM EDT (US)     9 / 35       
Ender_Ward, it would be hipocritical of you to say that Sioux are not a top civ. When you played Ottomans you stated that Spain were an easier match for Ottomans than Sioux.

Here's my theory. Sioux was the no 3 civ behind Iroquois and Dutch. Iroquois got nerfed and Dutch didn't.

Dutch are OP but not lame. To win you have to adapt. To win with Sioux you can do the same thing every game.

You'll remember that four (!) hour game against that crazy Russian that wouldn't give up, not realizing he was playing someone who in real life actually is a crazy Russian, that won't give up either. - Ender_Ward
Ender_Ward
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 08:52 PM EDT (US)     10 / 35       
Ender_Ward, it would be hipocritical of you to say that Sioux are not a top civ.
Then it's a bloody good thing I didn't say it, eh?

Of course they're a top civ in 1.04. Right behind Dutch and Spanish. On about even terms with 1.04 Iroquois. That, however, is in stark contrast with people claming that 1.04 Sioux makes 1.03 Iroquois look like a walk in the park. Those people are simply insane. And I think you know who I'm talking about ...
When you played Ottomans you stated that Spain were an easier match for Ottomans than Sioux.
They still are.

That has more to do with civ counters, however, than overall balance.
Here's my theory. Sioux was the no 3 civ behind Iroquois and Dutch. Iroquois got nerfed and Dutch didn't.
Spain was the 3rd civ behind Iroquois and Dutch. Unless of course you'll want to tell me that 1.03 Sioux was better than 1.03 Spain?
Dutch are OP but not lame. To win you have to adapt.
*laughs*
To win with Sioux you can do the same thing every game.
No.

Try doing the same thing again and again with Sioux. See how well you do in reality. I've actually played the civ for many, many games, and I rarely had the luxury of doing the same thing over and over again and winning.

The only civs in the game with which you, for the longest time, could do the same thing over and over again never having to adapt, were Spanish, Dutch and Iroquois.
In 1.04, Iroquois got nerfed, Dutch remained as strong as ever, and Spanish got boosted (yeah, you read that right).

"One wants to be loved, failing that admired, failing that feared, failing that hated and despised. One wants to instill in other people some form of emotion. The soul shudders before emptiness and wants contact, no matter the cost."
Eicho
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 09:07 PM EDT (US)     11 / 35       
I belive Ender said Spanish got boosted because TC 0.5x bonus vs Artillery, right?

because Rods got nerfed dierctly, and Lancers indirectly.
Ender_Ward
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 09:10 PM EDT (US)     12 / 35       
I belive Ender said Spanish got boosted because TC 0.5x bonus vs Artillery, right?
Yes. Assuming one understands anything at all about how Spain works, this is absolutely huge. It outweighs everything else.

"One wants to be loved, failing that admired, failing that feared, failing that hated and despised. One wants to instill in other people some form of emotion. The soul shudders before emptiness and wants contact, no matter the cost."
NATron
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 09:13 PM EDT (US)     13 / 35       
Woa, did my eyes just decieve me? I come back to AOE3 and my favorite civ is now taboo!?

Crap! Now I will never get respect for playing the civ I love. Whatever, it better not be any worse than the Iroquois.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

I heard distant forests all the time - CunniJA
I found my Jabra!
JimXIX
Kings Guard
posted 10-26-07 10:00 PM EDT (US)     14 / 35       
No.

Try doing the same thing again and again with Sioux. See how well you do in reality. I've actually played the civ for many, many games, and I rarely had the luxury of doing the same thing over and over again and winning.
You were a colonel. I guess this is where rank comes into it. But there are a lot less colonels than lieutenant to captain.

A Sioux doing the same thing every game will win much more often than a Dutch doing the same thing every game. Dutch are stronger, Sioux are easier... Easier to lame an OP strategy.
Spain was the 3rd civ behind Iroquois and Dutch. Unless of course you'll want to tell me that 1.03 Sioux was better than 1.03 Spain?
Having played brits through most of that period, I would say so. Not many will agree with me, but then maybe you can respect me for that, you know... not jumping on a bandwagon. Afterall I'm a lone soldier when it comes to my opinion on arrow knights
Of course they're a top civ in 1.04. Right behind Dutch and Spanish.
Perhaps, because Spain got boosted (falcs last longer to tc fire). At my level (Yes, that very bias you mentioned in another thread) Sioux are a lot stronger, especially in team games which you 'detest with the passion of a thousand suns'.

You'll remember that four (!) hour game against that crazy Russian that wouldn't give up, not realizing he was playing someone who in real life actually is a crazy Russian, that won't give up either. - Ender_Ward
Ender_Ward
Skirmisher
posted 10-26-07 10:29 PM EDT (US)     15 / 35       
JimXIX,
I played both Dutch and Sioux in 1.03. Right after I gave up on Ottomans, I went to Dutch. It was so easy and boring, precisely because I did the same thing over and over again and won, that I left them too and went to try Sioux (glad I did).

I'll give you an example. If you try to FF with Sioux every game, you'll die to rushes in 2/3 of them. You'll have to adapt depending on your opponent civ, his rushing style and his FF style.
Even in a guaranteed FF war, you could not employ the same strat against a Spanish as you could against an Iroquois. You could not do the same against Dutch and French.

In a rushing situation, defense of an Ottoman or Iroquois rush was the polar opposite of fending off an Aztec rush.

Sioux, if anything are harder to play if you don't completely dominate your opponent early on. And unless you faced Brits or Russia, you weren't.

In contrast, Ottomans are less powerful than Sioux but are easier to play (on TP/water maps). I should know.
Dutch are also easier to play, but are a lot more powerful. What I'm trying to say is that there is no direct correlation between civ ease of use and it's power.

~~~

Now your opinion on Sioux/Spain make sense. Two civs out of the whole will definitely find Sioux more troublesome, and that's Britian and (especially) Russia. Spain doesn't hit them with strong Colonial Cavalry (against which Russian Muskets suck) or strong melee infantry (against which Longbows utterly suck). Spain gives more time by typically doing a FF.
Sioux hits early and hard.

But against everyone else, Spain was way better in 1.03, and is more so in 1.04. Especially civs without a quick FF and access to good, long ranged counter-artillery units, should find it pure hell facing a Spanish FF where the 2 Falconets are their first Fortress shipment.

~~~

Lastly, I can see your point with regards to team games. But yes, I completely discard them in anything I say. All my arguments and statements apply solely to 1v1 supremacy games. Frankly, I don't give a damn about team games. They are fundamentally broken and will remain so regardless of overall civ balance.

"One wants to be loved, failing that admired, failing that feared, failing that hated and despised. One wants to instill in other people some form of emotion. The soul shudders before emptiness and wants contact, no matter the cost."
DeaconFeral
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 02:43 AM EDT (US)     16 / 35       
Clearly there is a large gap on the opinions of the Sioux. And Ender, I completely agree that no one should dictate how ANYONE plays a game they paid for. I usually just tell the people whining about Sioux to go back to vanilla... that shuts them up good.

I appreciate the feedback everyone!
John GrahamLeigh
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 04:56 AM EDT (US)     17 / 35       
Clearly there is a large gap on the opinions of the Sioux. And Ender, I completely agree that no one should dictate how ANYONE plays a game they paid for. I usually just tell the people whining about Sioux to go back to vanilla... that shuts them up good.

I appreciate the feedback everyone!
I'd like to play with the TWC extra cards etc but without the grossly unrealistic Native civilisations. All sorts of things irritate me about the natives: what Schildpad described as "the private zoo", the overpowered War Chiefs, the magic firepits, the canoes which can sink frigates... Suspension of disbelief can only go so far, and these factors make TWC perilously close to a fantasy game rather than a basically historical one.
Krazy_Karl
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 06:02 AM EDT (US)     18 / 35       
But unlike other OP civs, Sioux have some horrible, direct weaknesses.

> No walls
> Probably the worst economy in the game
> Expensive units
> No cannon
> Reliance on map control to sustain early/mid-game economy

These weaknesses ensure that Sioux will never become a really popular overpowered civilisation like the Iroquois were. Sioux are definitely overpowered but there are ways to exploit their weaknesses, much unlike Dutch.

im in ur base

steelin ur crates
KenjiCXT
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 07:26 AM EDT (US)     19 / 35       
Well, then give me a good way to beat the allout Sioux rush (as the French or Dutch) where he has a horde of clubs, with additional Cetans and 4 raiding ARs that will force you to garrison anything that isnt gathering behind or very close to your TC. Colonial Militia-card + HnR-xbowspam/skirms?

I dont see how you actually see them as such an easy civ to beat. In my game this is what usually happens.
1) Early hard-core rush. If Im able to defend from it I will have lost all units and probably at least 2-3 vills.

2) I build a counter army to what I scout and try raiding, but hell, he should already have his 1st and 2nd hunts if not even his 3rd (depending on map) at his base and if not at least the 15 bison card should've been sent. His colonial army is basically made of wood and food so checking far off mines would be silly. The 2nd battle is usually on par.

3) Our economies are probably good enough to go Fort, and mostly we do at almost the same time. Sure, Ill have falcs now to completly destroy his heavy-infanrty base, BUT, with an uber WC and even the Battle dance my army will be gone in no-time. My only chance is to wall off my ranged stuff and cannon only to be owned by the siege dance.

4) Im usually already dead 3 times here, but If Im actually able to stay alive beyond this point Ill probably win thanks to his weak economy. This however only happend once on Bayou where he was able to take control over every ****ing mine during stage 1-3. Sure, I usually have outpost'd the closest mines, but then all of a sudden 15 clubs run in with siege dance and take out the outpost in no time. I wont be quick enough to get my army there and even if I am he will gladly sacrifice the clubs to kill of 5 vills or so.

They're so freaking annoying to play against I get effing sick to my stomach every time I face one! And yes, just like someone earlier stated. If there's a way to play without the natives in QS in TAD, hell, I'd use it every time. (Kudos to you aztec players though. Aztecs are both fun to play and go up against [even when they had the OP'd erk], sucks that you lost the boosted EXP area in 1.04.)

Q: How do I get veteran skirms as the dutch?
- you have to buy the upgrade in the the barracks lol it should be under the skimiser logo. -you have to be in age3 to get veteran and age 4 to get guard.
After realizing they get automatically upgraded:
- o right i play brits so i just guessed.....thats slighly embarrasing lol

"Ah, the wonderful smell of failure!" - George_III on a full-capslocked topic.
JimXIX
Kings Guard
posted 10-27-07 08:43 AM EDT (US)     20 / 35       
Now your opinion on Sioux/Spain make sense. Two civs out of the whole will definitely find Sioux more troublesome, and that's Britian and (especially) Russia.
Yeah, against Spain I can do a devastopol ff (and get my fort up), it's still a close call, with the 2 flacs arriving at my base before I'm in fort, but the fort wagon goes up quickly.

Sioux usually rush Russia so it's a problem... And if they ff, sevastopol (i.e making blockhouses isn't gonna save you, unless you use it the lame way (making walls), which I wouldn't be afraid to do against a Sioux, because spamming wakina which siege buildings fast is lame. I respect your opinion that Dutch is lame, but imo you have to adapt a lot more with Dutch than Sioux.

France - not the weakest civ but I'd rather face Dutch any day... Dutch certainly don't seem lame from a French player's point of view...

You'll remember that four (!) hour game against that crazy Russian that wouldn't give up, not realizing he was playing someone who in real life actually is a crazy Russian, that won't give up either. - Ender_Ward
n_maser
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 11:40 AM EDT (US)     21 / 35       
Imo the only civ which do not have a too hard time vs Sioux is a Spanish rush, even then if he is too late the RR will own his army.
And no walls cant be argued as weakness in 1v1. not when you can rush most civs to death so quickly and easily, also you can raid his vills and get out of there so quickly totally neglecting your eco disadvantage. IMO the Sioux strenghts totally overcome their weaknessess. =/
Humility
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 12:06 PM EDT (US)     22 / 35       
I have not faced a decent souix player yet but reading this really makes my mouth water.
Ender_Ward
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 01:29 PM EDT (US)     23 / 35       
Well, then give me a good way to beat the allout Sioux rush (as the French or Dutch) where he has a horde of clubs, with additional Cetans and 4 raiding ARs
Since I've faced this and done this, and since I have no investment in Sioux anymore as I don't play them now (and not going to), here's what works.

The very simple combination of Crossbows and Pikes. Additionally, if you can upgrade your CdB damage at the Market, it makes things even easier.

I've rarely succeeded in rushing French players who did this, because unlike against Crossbows on their own, Warclubs become a lot less useful if they are greatly slowed and prevented from actually reaching most Crossbows in melee.
Which is what happens. Pikes slow things down and block off paths, Crossbows kill (Pikes do a bit of damage too).

You cannot FF against Sioux. You must do either a Colonial all out defense, or an all out attack.

The good thing is, if your Sioux opponent does a FF himself, you'll own him with your Crossbows/Pikes faster than he can blink. No minutemen (and useless/no age up troops) means his Warhuts will be down before he's even in Fortress (or he gets there without 1000f / 12 Bison by fast aging, which is just death delayed).
And Crossbows actually defeat Wakinas in small numbers, when you're in his base and he can't hit and run (must save his TC).

They key is to NOT have Crossbows alone. If you do, they will lose to Warclubs (with 4 Axe Riders and 2 Dog Soldiers being added later on). But if you have Pikes, the Warclub approach is largely useless.
Whenever I met this with Sioux I was forced to make a decent force to keep me minimally safe and try to age to Fortress. It was absolutely pointless to try and fight in Colonial against Frenchies who used a 60/40 Crossbow/Pike force distribution.
In Fortress I would utilize Tashunke prowlers and Dog Soldiers with Onikare (my biggest secret to success at the time). The game would usually have dragged on for a while, and by minute 20 having 10 Dog Soldiers (3 ship + 7 BB tech) with 2.5x against infantry would win me games right then and there, because each one was doing 100+ damage to all infantry and had a crapload of HP.
Cut right through Crossbow/Skirmisher + whatever HI meatshield. Especially assisted with attack dance.

That is what Frenchies had to really fear. Not the Warclub rush.


~~~

As Dutch, it's even easier. Walls and Skirmishers. Stops a Warclub rush cold. You need to make sure you are fully walled off though. And often double layers will be necessary. So lay off the Banks (1 built and 1 shipped max) and get those walls up. Now build 10-15 Skirmishers and get to Fortress. Do not build Banks, build WALLS. Even as you are aging.
A Warclub rushing Sioux will have a very late Fortress (9 minutes +). Especially if he didn't just fake rush to take down a couple of houses or your Bank Wagon. But a true, all out rush. If he attempts to break through, his casualties will be absolutely devastating. I should know, happened to me enough times.

In Fortress, abandon Skirmisher production. You want Halberds, Ruyters and Falconets (you want Ruyters because they will counter Rifle Riders and will help Halberds against hand cavalry). It may seem like a lot and really expensive, but remember that your opponent will be very much behind you both in aging and resources.

In Fortress, get your 3rd and 4th Bank gradually. Use the 1000 wood shipment as your third (after 8 Halberds and 9 Ruyters). Don't gather wood for Banks locally, only for the minimum housing you need.

Don't be afraid of the uber Warchief. That tech that allows him to take out cannons is insanely expensive (900 resources). He will have to sacrifice A LOT to get it.
Just in case, though, when you can afford it, put down a Church and train 3-5 Spies. This in conjunction with your Halberds will end the Warchief threat.

This is when I typically lost, horribly, as Sioux, when the Dutch player got to this stage. It was quite hopeless. And the smart Dutchies knew how to get to this stage relatively easily (the way I described above). Which is why I hated playing Dutch more than any other civ back in 1.03. And confirmed this impression in the few 1.04 games against Dutch. The (global, really) Dutch nerf in 1.04, TC 0.5x vs cannons, doesn't help Sioux in any way ...



P.S.
Sioux shipments don't grow on trees. When he's shipping in 15/12 Bison, he's not shipping military or crates.

"One wants to be loved, failing that admired, failing that feared, failing that hated and despised. One wants to instill in other people some form of emotion. The soul shudders before emptiness and wants contact, no matter the cost."
Killa4life
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 09:17 PM EDT (US)     24 / 35       
I originally had a roughly 2 pages long post with responses to about everyone who posted in here, but unluckily I accidently I deleted it, so I'll just sum up a few things for you, my dear ender_ward:

1) You're being a hypocrite. You tell me I shouldn't complain about Sioux when you, yeah, used Dutch and Spain yourself and (ab)used Sioux. Sure, I did use some Iros, but I played a LOT more ottoman games (also in 1.03 fyi).

2) Taking "cookie cutter arguments" like the "you are a lamer stfu" is completely ridiculous. Literally everyone lamed Germany in 1.07. Everyone who wanted to compete in tournaments and such played Iros in 1.03 TWC (NP, starsky and grunt included). Are they all supposed to stfu about any (new) balance issues now?!
Completely ridiculous.

3) I have been wrong before myself about a few balance things and unlike you I do admit my mistakes:
I underestimated ottos for some time and I also underestimated Germany. Now I know better.
I also was wrong by saying Sioux are the top1 civ (if I ever said that), HOWEVER they are still easily the second best civ and possibly the gayest/most annoying one (tho thats completely subjective).

4) Dutch are better when played flawlessly [therefore the WCG guys used them mainly], but Sioux are easier to use and more forgiving towards mistakes:
If you do a cookie cutter 9ish AR semi FF vs dutch every game you have very good chances of winning. Only if the Dutch plays perfectly, with micro, BO saving vills and such, he will win.

5) This isnt completely ontopic but just to rub it into your face: you always said I was a "fake 2200er" (whatever thats supposed to be) and dont deserve my rank. Funnily enough, I got attracted by Germans recently (not OP nor lame afaik) and have been using them for roughly my last 40ish games [no other civs in that time].
A link to my ELO stats, my games were ~90% QS vs whoever came (within 7 PRs):
http://www.elorating.com/portal/portal/default/Players/AOE3PlayerPortletWindow?op=setSearch&action=2&searchString=doppelsöldner
Top 25 1v1 TWC elo.

You on the other hand only ever used lame, nooby civs (sioux - no houses, ottos - vills dutch/spa just generally easy/op) and so on. Sitting in a glass house you shouldnt throw stones.

I wont even go on and bring up the fact that you got banned for CHEATING again...
Ender_Ward
Skirmisher
posted 10-27-07 09:46 PM EDT (US)     25 / 35       
To Dopple:

1) Yeah, I'm a real hypocrite "abusing" those Sioux in 1.03 ... LOL. It was some real abuse I gave Iroquois, Dutch and Spanish back in those days with my overpowered Sioux. And yes, I'm having trouble typing since I'm laughing so hard ...

You know what would make me a hypocrite? Playing Dutch/Iroquois in 1.03 till the cows came home, then calling Sioux the most unbalanced/lame/broken civ in existence in 1.04, without having played a single game of in 1.04, or having even used Sioux recently. Now that would, indeed, make my a hypocrite.

2) Look up the definition of "cookie cutter". Since English isn't your first language, try not to throw around idioms you don't understand.

3) So when I say that I underestimated Ottomans (Abus Guns in particular) and was biased in their favour, that isn't me admitting being incorrect in the past? Well I'll be damned.
And you didn't "ever" say Sioux were the top civ. You stated it several dozens of times in multiple threads. You were so fanatical about your proclamations regarding Sioux that people who initially agreed with you told you to shut it. That's how annoying you got, even for them. And when even your supporters are sick of you ... stop, and seek help. Well, thankfully you at least did the former ...

4)
Dutch are better when played flawlessly [therefore the WCG guys used them mainly], but Sioux are easier to use and more forgiving towards mistakes:
Did you actually type this with a straight face? If so ... wow. The bias is incredible. The delusion is simply magnificent. But then, you've rarely made sense in the past. What with the "French are impossible for my Ottomans" proclamation. Followed a couple of weeks later with "Ottomans are impossible for my French".
Or the gem of gems "Iroquois are not that overpowered".

Oh and I fixed this next quote for you:
If you do a cookie cutter 9ish AR semi FF vs dutch every game you have very low chances of winning.
There.

Oh and stop playing Theory Wars. As you haven't experienced this matchup from the Sioux side in ... about a year? Yeah ...


5)
This isnt completely ontopic but just to rub it into your face: you always said I was a "fake 2200er"
Nah, that's what your other "fans" called you.

I said you had horrendous micro (and I was far from the only one), but nonetheless pick the most effective strat in the game at the time, and lamed the hell out of it to get to a high rating.

And I care about your rating as much as I care about you.

As for me, right, I "lamed" Sioux in 1.03 (they were just so totally overpowered!). I "lamed" Dutch so much I dropped them since they were so boring and easy. And I "lamed" the very strat I came up with with Ottomans, and the two strats I came up with before it.

I'm just such a lamer ...

Strange, though, that I never touched Iroquois, not even once ...
Strange, also, that the only time I played Spain was during Germany's reign in 1.07 vanilla ...

But, sure, totally a lamer I am!

Dopple says it, must be true.


As for cheating, I never have. The kangaroo court at Age Sanctuary convicted me based on circumstantial evidence, for a problem I never had control over, till three weeks ago when I finally had the chance to change my ISP.

Now I play the game and enjoy not a single game going out of sync. And what has AS accomplished? Only marring the name of an innocent person, and making him spend an extra 50 bucks.

Oh and they, of course, gave a little kid (you, Dopple) the chance to feel superior.

At a game.

On the 'net.

Without any long term value.

Whatsoever.

Still feel important, my dear Dopple?

Hug that ELO rating. Hug it close!

"One wants to be loved, failing that admired, failing that feared, failing that hated and despised. One wants to instill in other people some form of emotion. The soul shudders before emptiness and wants contact, no matter the cost."
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames