Tubruk Vs Conquistador90

[Tubruk]

Tubruk [1st Lt] Ports
Vs
Conquistador90 [Major] Sioux

On Great Plains

which looking at the rec i can safely say, How many F****** Hunts did he need on his side?

I Go for the all powerful all mighty Portuguese Rush that Cammel Posted.

While Conquistador Goes for Tradeposts and AR/Br/Comanche with 2 dogsoldiers.

*unrated*

Thought it was a good show of the speed of the rush even though i made a few mistakes ::/

[TheRam]

GG!
Go on my son!
Portuguese glory!

[StrokeyBlofeld]

[quote=""Cammel""]GG!
Go on my son!
Portuguese glory![/quote]

+1 to that matey!

Top bombing Tubby. :-P

[I__CHAOS__I]

GG & well done, but after watching it, I'm convinced the P10-strat is better and more brutal.

too bad I don't have it rec'd yet, but check these stats (vs etrips, unrated where he knew my strat in advance)
P10

even all the mace shipments/coyotes etc didnt matter

[rambo098]

GG

[Blackadderthe4th]

Hmm shame we can't go double ports in the tourney, would be OP! Good job tubby.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

After Lazy's insistent prodding yesterday, I've got to watch this rec so I can learn all this fuss about Ports these days.

Taking on Majors now, eh, Tubs! Sweet!

[Tubruk]

Cammels Recs are of slightly Better quality to Mine ::/

I made a few mistakes which slowed me down a bit ops:

[TheRam]

I'd appreciate not starting a debate into which strat is 'better', if you age with 10 villagers you get a weaker economy initially, and your economy is already weaker at the beginning, this just means if you fail to get rid of villagers which is very possible with an opponent who scouts that you have doomed yourself to rely on shipments and map control you can't support through lack of resource and therefore military.

[KingVint]

[quote=""Cammel""]I'd appreciate not starting a debate into which strat is 'better', if you age with 10 villagers you get a weaker economy initially, and your economy is already weaker at the beginning, this just means if you fail to get rid of villagers which is very possible with an opponent who scouts that you have doomed yourself to rely on shipments and map control you can't support through lack of resource and therefore military.[/quote]

No offense intended, but you say you don't want to start a debate of opinions, then you go to say why you feel his strat is weak.

On another note, I prefer the talk about why some strats are strong and weak. It enables people who don't play that civ to learn what to expect when versing them. Although, when it comes to the "I am higher rank than you and have more experience", then I agree that type of debating isn't a debate at all.

Lastly, awesome game, Tubruk! Way to keep the pressure on =)

[TheRam]

[quote=""KingVint""][quote=""Cammel""]I'd appreciate not starting a debate into which strat is 'better', if you age with 10 villagers you get a weaker economy initially, and your economy is already weaker at the beginning, this just means if you fail to get rid of villagers which is very possible with an opponent who scouts that you have doomed yourself to rely on shipments and map control you can't support through lack of resource and therefore military.[/quote]

No offense intended, but you say you don't want to start a debate of opinions, then you go to say why you feel his strat is weak.

On another note, I prefer the talk about why some strats are strong and weak. It enables people who don't play that civ to learn what to expect when versing them. Although, when it comes to the "I am higher rank than you and have more experience", then I agree that type of debating isn't a debate at all.

Lastly, awesome game, Tubruk! Way to keep the pressure on =)[/quote]
My point is that I didn't want a 'this strat is better!' 'no! this one is!' type of thing because we obviously both have our opinions, and have already assessed the strengths and weaknesses of each. But I think I have to put forth my opinion, because I've used the strategy to great effect at around the pr 30-35 mark. That is all.