9 straight losses
 

I've lost 9 straight, lets all guess when my streak will end.

I guess at 10.

dude, kinda know how ya feel on that one. guess everyone has that dry spell sometime, including me.

Heh, Alouette and I lost 3 straight today (sorry Al!).

Just think of how good we are making everyone else feel though with all the winning they are doing!!! :p

The streak broke after 9. Now its time to win 9 straight, to bring balance to the force.

heh Mist
 

To be fair, I thought that the first game was lost when your zeals went west to cover Tom and Flash (who were being pressed hard). The whole point of our opening strategy had been that I would tank bbs (Vulgari bb nec nec and laz bb mael mael) at the 12 mark, and you would get zeals, and that - together - this would be incredibly difficult to stop - we could just grab vics main and let them try to push us out.

Unfortunately, it ended up being me, alone, trying to do that, and when the third color shows I have to go, full stop. I'm not sure what happened west I haven't checked the film but my impression was that Beaver was basically owning Flash for 20 minutes - if that was Flash, and I'm far from sure it actually was - after that it was just a matter of time. You and I had tanked defensively (in effect) which means we lose.

The next game was just bad strategy - Beaver upgraded a nat main and it should have fallen and didn't, because certain people who will remain nameless can't or won't rush.

That said it was great fun killing Chess's goons repeatedly with sofi and aethan. And Rake is nowhere near as rusty as we thought.

The game hasn't changed at all except for dreadlords apparently. And dl's were allowed so....

Alou

I would really encourage you to watch the film (if you have it) before you post your assumptions about what happened on my and Flash's side in that first game. As I recall, we were fighting pretty hard for a while to control a cil village and cey town right outside my main; after that, we took the fight to them for most of the rest of the game. While Mist's zeals were helpful, I think we could have at least held on defensively without them. I was not as tanked as I could have been, and since my main was right in the middle of both indies, it would have been very difficult for them to withstand our counterattacks.

I would have MUCH preferred Mist to keep his zealots home and either use them to help you push or even defend against vic's raids. Over the course of the game, I gave both you and Mist 400 gold in tribute as well as settling 5-6 vils, almost all of them for free. This, in addition to the constant distraction of trying to rush troops (zombies mainly and few skels) back to defend your vils against raids really made it hard to concentrate on the offensive taking place on my side of the map.

As far as I can recall, neither Flash nor I ever called for help; you and Mist made the decision to send the zealots over to our side. As such, I feel that while your post seemed to imply that Mist was needed to prevent the total collapse of our side, there really is no basis to this given what actually happened.

If you have the film, I would appreciate it if you posted it and replied to my comments based on having viewed what happened on the side Flash and I were fighting on.

I haven't watched that film so I couldn't really comment. I know afterwards that Chess said the Zeals were the only thing which pushed them back in the west. However in hindsight you may well have been right - pushing the east with the zeals and hoping you guys hold would have probably worked better as that would have forced Vic to react rather than being able to freely raid.

I made multiple mistakes that game (in fact in all 3 games). Vic raided me hard and a single goon/scout just wasn't enough. I probably would have been better off going goon/ss with econ as it happens and then maybe adding the zeals later - on whichever front. I seem to recall they had a nice indie advantage tho (or at least 2 of them had gauri) so could have been tough either way.

Heres the Film for your viewing pleasures, and welcome to the forums tom ;).

Well I watched the film
 

I think the Zeals were a bad idea.

Of course, that's not good since they were my idea - I was the one who said as we popped our initial setts: "Everyone, delayed rush - everyone tanks at 12:00 I will be getting bb/nec, Mist can you get me zeals?"

In retrospect, yes, the Zealots should have stayed west. Either we should have sacked vills for time east or my sbs should have gone - probably the former given the econ that flash and Tom were generating. The thing is, sacking vills for time is not something that I necessarily trust other people to do.

We all made mistakes, on both sides, but I'll limit myself to our side for now.

I should have been less focused on hurting vic. He made a lot of skels quickly and honestly, even with Maels, wasn't the best target for a bone bow based army. If vulgari had stayed center west and stopped their advance (anyone think he wouldn't have? I think it would have been enough), and the zeals and Laz and my SBs had followed the original plan, it might have been very different.

Mist should have told me look, kemo sabe, zeals are a bad idea, I need ss to deal with vic's skel raids, and I'm getting them - econ and skel a bit and we'll tank later. Just because I talk like Raadmme sometimes doesn't mean I am. I'm decent on the micro end and have the concepts down but I fully admit I don't have his board vision and I am not a field general like he was and treating me like one can mean game losses.

Tom and Flash: Did ok, but really just got beat by their opposite numbers. The zeals maybe weren't the only thing that -would- have stopped the enemy, but they were what did it. I agree in retrospect that they would have been better used in the east but - well - that's what I thought during the game.

Tom: Didn't mean to criticize you specifically.

It's an interesting one isn't it? I mean facing two cey running skels you would think a couple of kohaned inf/cler/zeal would be a good idea. And sure enough they really messed the enemy up pretty badly when they first arrived west. It was only when the gauri arrived there that they met their match.

So good idea in themselves... but we (I?) didn't have anything to cover for the hole that left in the east. Which means, as everyone has said, either they should have stayed east or I should have got something else first (eg SS).

So some interesting lessons there.

Imo....zeals should always be put on bows, when fighting skellies or mareten. get inf cler and back it up with bow zeal and that owns the ceyah and works well against the gauri too.

I don't bow/zel working that great vrs gauri.

Also, with nat comp limit is can be tough to get the inf/cle THEN get bow/zel out.



However... I guess I can agree that inf/cler/inf is going to kick the crap out of vanilla skels while your goon goes on smash and grab raid. You can settle some more and get zels as needed or bow/sum if the ceyah players switches. Anything that buys a nat time is good and inf/cler/inf is going to shutdown a ceyah player cold until they get some support units.

Getting inf/cler/inf * 2 backed by arch/zeal is fairly hard as an early game nat (12 mins I think it was?) unless you get an indie or something. That's 8 more wood and an extra company slot at a point when you probably only have 3 more pop slots anyway (and want to keep one for a settler). I agree it would be stronger overall (3 companies usually is better than 2 for a start) but 2 inf/cler/zeal worked pretty well at that time.

actually.
 

Maybe the way to go was to get kohaned Stick pally pally, maybe 3-4 of them. I could have donated a cey vill to the cause to support them and comp, maybe tanking a bit harder or making necro wraiths instead of maels. I know paladins are supposed to suck but they do -own- vanilla skels and cey militia.

Alou.