Strongest civ in the late colonial

[zoom]

How late is late colo then :/ 99 colo vild"s? Why would thqt ever happen...

Exactly. That''s why he may technically be right but it should be noted it is only the case for full Colonial economy with all Discovery and Colonial Age respetively home-city shipments sent.

[zoom]

Dunno brit musk huss with 4ups and aa is scary as fk

Boyars + cav up + AA is more scary. And Russia eco just gets better later on.

How is a Colonial Age full Russian Economy better than a British one?? The edge lies solely in Strelets, Cossacks and train times IMO.

[admiraljsmith]

And then theres the already mentioned aspect, by [u style="font-weight:bold'"]Djigit[/u][span style="font-weight:bold'"]' [/span]azzys ability to gain xp by various ways. This makes them competitive enough to get to the late colonial, which you doubt.

No, it does not at any half-decent level of skill. A lot of civilizations (particularly the ones I mentioned in my initial post ITT) have plenty of time to kill the Aztec long before they are able to reach a competitive late Colonial Age stage (as this takes a long while unless youre playing no rush and making only villagers, as mentioned).

It all depends on so many variables. ') Azzys got many builds and it all comes down to actual gameplay. Btw, what is your main account?

[zoom]

Youre actually right! Taking into account Fertility Dance which one certainly should do with regards to later Colonial, they should be able to more or less rival the British. In any realistic setting however they will have long lost the game if they remain in Colonial to such a point for the reasons mentioned. I should definitely not have said that under the given conditions of my post (my interpretation of this poll since its idiotic to ask in such a way as has been done without definitions). Then again if we were to discuss the theoretical setting in which all civilizations have reached their Colonial Age economical peak, they would do far worse against certain civilizations.

I suppose in NR40 No Fortress Age they would be one of the better civilizations...

Which reasons? They already rival british without hypotetical settings.

No, they are dead before they can rival the British without hypothetical settings. British boom and unit cards kick in long before the Aztec can dance his way to enough fertility...

[zoom]

No, it does not at any half-decent level of skill. A lot of civilizations (particularly the ones I mentioned in my initial post ITT) have plenty of time to kill the Aztec long before they are able to reach a competitive late Colonial Age stage (as this takes a long while unless youre playing no rush and making only villagers, as mentioned).

It all depends on so many variables. ') Azzys got many builds and it all comes down to actual gameplay. Btw, what is your main account?

It does but without those variables (uneven skill distribution between two players, suboptimal builds, maps etc) its clear as can be AFAIC.

*Zoo

[Garja]

Yep that's key of course. But also they have more mobility because of strelets compared to lbows and because cossack get 2 ups in one card (and they also have 1 extra card). Also btw strelets have more ups from the AA

[zoom]

Yep that''s key of course. But also they have more mobility because of strelets compared to lbows and because cossack get 2 ups in one card (and they also have 1 extra card). Also btw strelets have more ups from the AA

CIR is a very important mention indeed. I still don''t see how the Russian economy is superior though. Are you talking about units being more cost efficient?

[Garja]

Which reasons? They already rival british without hypotetical settings.

No, they are dead before they can rival the British without hypothetical settings. British boom and unit cards kick in long before the Aztec can dance his way to enough fertility...

Well I know I had to say that at some point lol. Here we go: not my Aztecs

CIR is a very important mention indeed. I still dont see how the Russian economy is superior though. Are you talking about units being more cost efficient?

Yep unit efficiency is one reason (same thing for aztecs btw but even more). The second one is that Russia eco isnt bad at all. Steel traps and possibly tp line. Also they catch up in vill count later on. They also get amalgamation more easily (and they get more use out of it). Third and probably most important reason is that they last longer on natural resources because of the first point and because they also have map control.

[zoom]

It's fine, but irrelevant all the same ?? when you're outplaying your opponent I've no doubt that is the case.

[Garja]

It''s fine, but irrelevant all the same ?? when you''re outplaying your opponent I''ve no doubt that is the case.

It''s not about outplaying. With the right circumstances aztecs are just better than Brits. On non optimal circumstances it''s still close.

[mnogud]

im only sure india is #1, after that its less obvious
and otto fits into this in a strange way only because their age 2 is so strong that their opponents all lose before it becomes late colonial, so maybe otto is #1 even though theyre not actually the strongest in late colo (or are they?)

I fail to see how Indians stand so much as the slightest fraction of a chance against Japanese or Iroquois in half or full-eco Colonial with all Discovery and Colonial shipments sent. Could you please explain to me how you dont fail to do the same?

Also, indeed ?? that is why this poll is so flawed to begin with. Apart from the spelling of Ottomans. I do rather appreciate the correct (in terms of consistency with the actual game) term for the Turkish civilization...

india eco matches japan+ cav upgrades+ fortress unit compostion.... The mobility makes them very strong

[deleted_user0]

I think ur mixing up things now, if u gonna discuss in what shape civs get to late colo in a mu, then there is no point really because iro otto will trash all civs so much they get to late colo in a coffin

[zoom]

Its fine, but irrelevant all the same ?? when youre outplaying your opponent Ive no doubt that is the case.

Its not about outplaying. With the right circumstances aztecs are just better than Brits. On non optimal circumstances its still close.

Oh they are, absolutely! Its just that a scenario where Aztec does no damage to the British economy (as presumed for the purpose of this entire discussion) is not the right circumstances. The right circumstances involve doing irrecoverable damage (relatively speaking) within about twelve minutes into the game.

[zoom]

I think ur mixing up things now, if u gonna discuss in what shape civs get to late colo in a mu, then there is no point really because iro otto will trash all civs so much they get to late colo in a coffin

I''ve no idea whether this is directed at me, in which case I also have no idea what you''re talking about, because that''s the exact opposite of what I''ve been doing as opposed to seemingly most everyone else ITT. If this is the case, please re-read my post(s) or specify what leads you to believe so such that I may clarify it.

[deleted_user0]

But this thread isnt about that, because in that case we already know the strongest colo civs...

[deleted_user0]

I think ur mixing up things now, if u gonna discuss in what shape civs get to late colo in a mu, then there is no point really because iro otto will trash all civs so much they get to late colo in a coffin

Ive no idea whether this is directed at me, in which case I also have no idea what youre talking about, because thats the exact opposite of what Ive been doing as opposed to seemingly most everyone else ITT. If this is the case, please re-read my post(s) or specify what leads you to believe so such that I may clarify it.

It was aimed at the direction gArja and you were going in

[zoom]

Ive no idea whether this is directed at me, in which case I also have no idea what youre talking about, because thats the exact opposite of what Ive been doing as opposed to seemingly most everyone else ITT. If this is the case, please re-read my post(s) or specify what leads you to believe so such that I may clarify it.

It was aimed at the direction gArja and you were going in

Actually I was pointing out I think certain of Garjas argument(s) and opinions are only true if you do go in that direction which one must not for the purposes of this thread. Again you should probably re-read at least my posts.

[deleted_user0]

I dont have to reread, you should stop taking things so personal. If you think it doesnt apply to you, then thats fine

[zoom]

I dont have to reread, you should stop taking things so personal. If you think it doesnt apply to you, then thats fine

Oh, I agree you don''t have to' It''s just a suggestion I find very worthwhile. I have no idea what you actually mean by taking it personally, but I will say this: It was directed at least in part at me and so I will respond because I want to. If you think I''m offended by or obsessed with it, you couldn''t be more wrong if you so tried.

[Hazza54321]

russia is better than brit late colonial, they have the map, faster train times, vills catch up as they train 3 vils at the same time as a civ trains 2, strelets can do x3 with aa (makes brits upped muskets useless), boyars, cav hp card(makes cossacks close to becoming the strength of a hussar), and how cost effective their units are.

[Garja]

Its not about outplaying. With the right circumstances aztecs are just better than Brits. On non optimal circumstances its still close.

Oh they are, absolutely! Its just that a scenario where Aztec does no damage to the British economy (as presumed for the purpose of this entire discussion) is not the right circumstances. The right circumstances involve doing irrecoverable damage (relatively speaking) within about twelve minutes into the game.

Nope, its actually brits that have to push out or they just autolose in the long run.

[aoefan4life]

Russia has the best late game colonial because of fast infantry and the sheer mass.