jerom wrote:Well, they are weaknesses if you were trying to design the perfect civ. And thats why they arent on iro/otto level.
That, and the lack of a strong cav semi ff. Which is probably due to the age up politicians and them not having auto veteren skirmishers that destroy colonial units.
But otto and iro arent perfect either. Iro loses to several civs in a hypotetical very late game situation, and otto pretty much loses vs all civs if they fail to win with one of their timings. Each civs has strenght and weaknesses on paper but you also need to consider how large is the role played by those deficit for the specific civ.
Iroquois loses to many civs very late game in rush due to not having proper cards for their late game.. Iroquois is only good very very late game vs almost all civs but still loses to France in nr55. Beats prettying every other civ though. But in late game rush Iroquois lack of cards make it very weak to even cardless euro civ
garja wrote:But otto and iro arent perfect either. Iro loses to several civs in a hypotetical very late game situation, and otto pretty much loses vs all civs if they fail to win with one of their timings. Each civs has strenght and weaknesses on paper but you also need to consider how large is the role played by those deficit for the specific civ.
Iroquois loses to many civs very late game. Iroquois is only good very very late game vs almost all civs but still loses to France in nr55. Beats prettying every other civ though. But in late game rush Iroquois lack of cards make it very weak to even cardless euro civ
Were talking about sup so late game is the stage when you have 50-60 vills, age3-4 and when theres no more ressources on the map.
adderbrain5 wrote: Iroquois loses to many civs very late game. Iroquois is only good very very late game vs almost all civs but still loses to France in nr55. Beats prettying every other civ though. But in late game rush Iroquois lack of cards make it very weak to even cardless euro civ
Were talking about sup so late game is the stage when you have 50-60 vills, age3-4 and when theres no more ressources on the map.
yea ik lol and thats what Im saying pretty much any civ beats Iroquois at this stage...although free-farm plantation and agrarian Ways is a big bonus Iroquois cant maintain a strong composition verse most other civs at this point without the cards that they would only have in a TRdeck
No actually for late game I meant 99 villagers with mills, plantations and shit. Iroquois still do decent because they have an eco buffer from previous stages and they can send infinite 1500 res which isn't bad. Also their units are amazing.
OT: just saw buch of brit games.. this dude send vill to build house and shift click him to food. But that new vill after birth go with him also.. is this super fast mousing or some kind of trick?
Im wondering if they really have a weakness. The only one really is no exciled prince and quartermaster and kinda food heavy, so they deplete hunts quickly.
Its like how france basically doesnt have any weaknesses.
Problem is that both civs also dont have any sick things. Or well, thats why they aren't OP.
drumal wrote:OT: just saw buch of brit games.. this dude send vill to build house and shift click him to food. But that new vill after birth go with him also.. is this super fast mousing or some kind of trick?
you can set the waypoint of manors. Select it and right click on a hunt and the newly created villager will go to that hunt.
in fact other civs like french needs food too. but french can play more aggresively to get map control early, or they can just sff ff. but brit always defend and boom, so resource becomes a problem. iro units cost much more food than brit, but iro never get out of food.
paul wrote:in fact other civs like french needs food too. but french can play more aggresively to get map control early, or they can just sff ff. but brit always defend and boom, so resource becomes a problem. iro units cost much more food than brit, but iro never get out of food.
Brit can actually rush faster than fre but that''s bad.
paul wrote:in fact other civs like french needs food too. but french can play more aggresively to get map control early, or they can just sff ff. but brit always defend and boom, so resource becomes a problem. iro units cost much more food than brit, but iro never get out of food.
Brit can actually rush faster than fre but thats bad.
sometimes its useful. a surprising 6 musk 6lb rush killschina ff or even otto fb. but french can rush in age 1.
French villager rush > British confirmed. Have you ever tried to suicide 3 villagers to gather up all the enemy crates against people who don't know that the tower does 200 damage to villagers?
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
venox wrote:French villager rush >' British confirmed. Have you ever tried to suicide 3 villagers to gather up all the enemy crates against people who don''t know that the tower does 200 damage to villagers?
I would say the main Brits weakness is everyone's obsession with overbooming with this civ. Overbooming with Japan is also desirable but with a much higher risk for example.
jerom wrote:Well, they are weaknesses if you were trying to design the perfect civ. And thats why they arent on iro/otto level.
That, and the lack of a strong cav semi ff. Which is probably due to the age up politicians and them not having auto veteren skirmishers that destroy colonial units.
British do well against Iroquois if they have good hunts. Iro cant really rush Brit because of longbows and fast age up, and in mid-late colonial it is more or less fair.
More as anti raid or to secure a tactical important area on the map like close to water or a choke point but you're right: If your enemy attacks you and you both fight under the tower he does significant damage but in most match ups I prefer the 500 food.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
deleted_user 
[Armag] diarouga 
