AoC Mid Sh 1v1/2v2 Civ

[Olinja]

Kaz, Maybe depending on who plays the civ, but it is made 2 counter slut rush...Even in later while ur massing so is he + soon 2 get his pers. u can aim for early hero and expect to get some nice damage in but he should have 1 around same time. once his hero is made its pretty much gg from there vs slut, now if its some noob who dosnt even have a well protected base yea slut rush would tear any1 apart like that lol. Please correct me cause i rly never looked into patch note but saw elites post on buff'd catas if units / tower / idk have been changed, i only know Pilum Cata and PT have been buff'd/nerf'd
not sure if that would have a Major or minor change on here now.

[Arntzen]

Kaz, Maybe depending on who plays the civ, but it is made 2 counter slut rush...Even in later while ur massing so is he + soon 2 get his pers. u can aim for early hero and expect to get some nice damage in but he should have 1 around same time. once his hero is made its pretty much gg from there vs slut

If I havent been clear about this earlier, when I'm discussing strategies I'm talking about when people are equally skilled. From decent-expert lvl. I'm usually thinking me vs me, or me vs someone I consider have same skill as me.

Now, I strongly dissagree on the: "this civ made to counter swordrush", and I'm going to try to explain why.
First of all, most strategies have a strong point, and a weak point. To make this very simple lets say a rush civ is strong early game, and a boom civ is strong late game. Quite obvious isnt?
After a long time of testing out civilizations and strategies players of EE have realized that there is 1 rush civ thats alot better then the others. Therefor this civ is used by everyone. A standard sword-rush civ. Compare this to grenwar-civ. On aoc a expanciv have eventually become very close to equal in the early game vs swordrush. I'm talking about strong sword expan civ. Imo this has a 40-45% winrate vs swordrush. Some would say its a 50/50, and some wud say the expan civ is around the 50-60 % win rate, but this is my opinion.
Now, I'll explain why this civ is stronger earlygame then Texas civ.
1. Texas civ doesnt have sword btd. This means 2 things. Either you make 3 rax or your dead. Again this is my opinion. So going 3 rax means you will have less wood. This means all you can afford after the barracks are 1 tc and 2 houses. Because of 2 houses early on vs strong enemie swords +they are superior in number will give you a really hard time first 5 minutes.

Why will you die with 2 rax and no btd on swords? You will be strongly outnumbered. You does not only have 2/3 of his production buildings but his buildings also produce 30% faster.
2. Your swords are weaker means every battle outside off moral will be in ur enemies favor.
3. This civ, as taco said, strongly on getting gold early on. This means 2 things. Its now easier for your enemie to start picking apart ur eco since ur relying on every resource except stone. If I understand you correctly you would get gold insted of secound iron. Am I wrong?
Anyhow getting gold in the first place means slower hero/ or even less army. Either way, to me this should be a buildorder win for the rusher.
Oh and to be clear, this doesnt mean the rusher will win 100%, but IMO between 85-95% of the time vs Texas civ.
And if you are uncertain on what civs I'm talking about look here:
viewtopic.php?f=77&t=1876

And i cant stress this enough, read my reply, ask if you dont understand something. Dont make up what you think I mean/said and make ur point after that. If you refuse to use real discussing-manners, then dont reply.

[Captain Nemo]

I can see this civ working in 1v1 after 20f11, because it can counter pretty much anything. Any time before that it is extremely vulnerable though. It's too "mixy" for a 2v2. I have a farming civ with exp too, and army production lacks extremely in the first 10f11. It picks up after that tho, but u wont be infront untill 20f11. The persian u can add is the savior in this civ of course, but I'd still doubt it could defend a proper swordrush.

[Texas Ranger]

Ohh I'm so popular!

1. Olinja I was never banned at any point...

2. Idk how much sword rushers have improved (just played a few games today! it's been forever...), but I used this civ a lot vs. some top players way back when including Seizmic, Krass, Assys, lion, etc. ESPECIALLY lion, I played a ton of games with that guy, usually with some observers. I'd put the win rate using this civ against his swords at ~70%. I won't say this civ was made to beat sword rushing, but it's pretty good at it.

3. I've always found ca rushes the hardest thing to stop using this civ. It basically requires at least 1 well-placed gold mine, and you don't always get that.

[eeralf_]

i played my sword civ like 11 years now and works fine when iam 6 beer, but with 8 beer it will be harder, hahaha

man sry , often is map, or counter or any, grrrrrr, u cant say u have the big point
sometimes its random , like real life, wrong place , wrong time and u are the ass

[Elite]

Hows this civ gonna do vs 35 swords and a hero at 13 f11?

[Texas Ranger]

I imagine the civ would do just fine, as it has in the many years and games I've won with it. The player, however, might be called a hacker.

[Arntzen]

I think Elite was looking for a concrete answer on what exactly this civilization can bring to the table at f11 13 to stop that push. (I also imagine he was thinking about a game with close to zero harrasment before this push, might be wrong.)
I for one, have a hard time seing what you could possibly come up with. Only two options in my mind would be either full wall (with rapair once he comes), or a prophet (or two) with malaria ready for action.

But we want your view on this.

[Captain Nemo]

at 13f11 make it 45-50 with hero. 35 is aiming a little low, although the point is almost the same.

[Texas Ranger]

The question is flawed. It really all comes down to the early game. No one 'rushes' without attacking in the beginning, and in the beginning he will lose swords while I won't (I'd lose some cits instead). So in terms of sword count at around 5-7 F11, we'll be close to equal. If he masses at this point and waits for richard before attacking, I should be able to snag a bunch of iron to help catch up on production, or I can maybe full-wall and go for persians to camp him out. When he attacks, yes his army will be bigger and stronger (though he won't have 50 + hero at 13...), but of course I have the defensive bonuses of towers/cits/buildings so he needs that. It's a lot closer than you realize, and I think the flaw in thinking comes from assuming I sit on 1 iron mine for a long time, which is simply not true.

Should note this makes it sound a lot easier than it is. It's actually quite difficult, and this is typically where the game is either won or lost. Again, early game is key and you have to have a strong enough eco after his harass that you can boom hard while he waits for richard.

[Captain Nemo]

So in terms of sword count at around 5-7 F11, we'll be close to equal.

stopped reading

[xCFinsane-]

Texas has proven hisself for many years and 1000 of games that this strategy works against sword rush or any other swords civ.

I've seen a lot of games of him against pro players with a sword rush/boom and what he says is true.

He's the best mid player around simple as that

[Arntzen]

There is no doubt in my mind that texas could use this civ succesfully. But when he is the only one who makes it work, this question comes to mind: Is it Texas or the civ that is good?

[Texas Ranger]

Listen, this post was made for people who were wondering what civ I use. Believe it or not, a lot of people have asked me over the years. If you don't like it move on, but if this is helpful or at least interesting to you, then its purpose has been served.

[Arntzen]

I believe you, and I've seen it in action. The reason, my reason at least, for asking is because I'm interested in your thoughts against a sword rush and what you think this civ can do to defend a attack like 35 + hero at f11 13. Not do disrespect or make you or your civ look bad in any way. I think that the fact that we actually sat down, read this and starting a discussion on this is far better then no reply and everyone just "moved on".

If your answer against swordrush is: I use this civ on people I know don't often rush/ are bad at rushing.
Or: Holding a rush against a slutter is highly depending on whether or not the rusher waste alot of swords from start.
Or even: Only way to defend is by getting early prophet with malaria ready or full wall with persians.

Everyone of these answers would be alright, and would might settle this once and for all.