Most underated civ?

[I__CHAOS__I]

russia can FF on siberia, lots of good hunts, tower next to gold mine

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""IndyBrit""]Is anyone else amused that Russia sucks on Siberia?[/quote]

They do?

[huGGy]

[quote=""IndyBrit""]Is anyone else amused that Russia sucks on Siberia?[/quote]

I didn't say they suck, i said they have problems. Try to face a boomy Civ (Brits, Japs, India) or a Civ that has a good FF there (French, Germans, Ottos...). You'll see what i mean. They have this tower as well to defend rushes and their FF is better than the russian FF. But maybe it's just me.

[deadhanddan]

indy ment that it is ironic that russia would have problems on siberia as it is russia's home turf

[huGGy]

[quote=""deadhanddan""]indy ment that it is ironic that russia would have problems on siberia as it is russia's home turf[/quote]

What does "ironic" mean? ops:

[deadhanddan]

ironic is a word used to describe something that is unexpected and coincidental , such as russia failing on a map such as siberia would be considered ironic because siberia happens to be located in russia

[huGGy]

[quote=""deadhanddan""]ironic is a word used to describe something that is unexpected and coincidental , such as russia failing on a map such as siberia would be considered ironic because siberia happens to be located in russia [/quote]

Thanks for answering my question

[Sporting_Lisbon]

[quote=""deadhanddan""]ironic is a word used to describe something that is unexpected and coincidental , such as russia failing on a map such as siberia would be considered ironic because siberia happens to be located in russia [/quote]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Irony


This link should clear things up

[deadhanddan]

i prefer webster's defintion , easier to understand

[Sporting_Lisbon]

I was being ironic woot

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

Just read any satire I write on my blog and you'll know what irony means

What about the Brits? They are pretty difficult to play in 1v1, at least, I find them harder than the Germans. I think they are much better in team games. I don't know if they are underrated, but they are certainly tricky to learn at the beginning. I mean, try defending an Agra Fort rush or something without any military shipments. Brits only get strong after their 700/600 wood shipments kick in. Before that, it's a struggle.

[Sporting_Lisbon]

I've lost times enough as iro vs brits to guarantee that they are slightly underrated, their boomy abilities with a decent lb/pike management are absolutely evil.

[thanster]

The ottomans are dieing out..... on nilla every game had one in it, but on tad, i hardly see them. I suppose its cause they are pretty sucky the only way i think otto is op is when its a 2v2 and his ally is russia, then they both rush as fast as they can, good combination. Strelets+jans is a tough one to beat if they have good micro. Me and a friend beat some lamers by both of us going brits and doing lb/pike. Mass LI beats it okay, but those cossacks are annoying.

[generalbuschmann]

double brits lame?

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""generalbuschmann""]double brits lame?[/quote]

Sometimes! Straight double LB/musket or double LB/pike with manor boom is pretty OP.

Try triple Brits... even better.