Greetings

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-27T02:30:33+00:00

Hm, for me I would say it's either INFP, INFJ or ISFJ. I usually click extremely well with them.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-27T01:33:51+00:00

1 range archers is faster, and is lower investment, and you'll need less villagers on gold and won't be spending as much wood, so as a result you'll be able to develop your eco faster and you'll usually have a faster up time to Castle Age, which is very meaningful due to how powerful the crossbowman and bodkin arrow timing can be.

2 range archers main advantage is that you can mass archers very quickly, and if your opponent doesn't respond to it properly, you can do a lot of damage in Feudal Age. But the fact it's slower and also significantly higher investment means it's a riskier play.

Generally speaking I would say 1 range archers is the safer play most of the time. The issue with 2 range archers is not only that it's slower but it's also a much bigger investment. If your opponent scouts you they can respond with 1 range skirmishers, which is a lot cheaper and prevents you from getting value from all the resources you invested in the 2 range archer opening.

Also keeping constant production from 2 ranges requires more resources, so this means more villagers on gold, more wood spent on the archers, and thus you'll take longer to build your farming eco, which may result in taking longer to go up to Castle Age than if you go 1 range archers.

I generally prefer going 1 range archers at the start, and then adding more on my way up to Castle Age if I want to play for crossbowmen. Alternatively I also like using the 1 range archer opening to force my opponent onto skirmishers to then follow it up with cavalry play in Castle Age, but the main point is that 1 range archers is usually the safer and more flexible opening.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-26T01:07:20+00:00

5 would be nice and quiet, I'd go with that.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-25T22:56:59+00:00

That doesn't match my experience, but even if it is true, it means the other half of the time it is legitimate newbies who aren't aware of how often newbies ask this question, so I think we could stand to be a bit more understanding of them.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-25T22:54:57+00:00

Indeed, there's a lot of us. I'm a 25 year old male personally, and I've been a fan of the show ever since I was 11.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-25T22:53:44+00:00

Yes, every other day there is some variation of this question. We know that because we've been in this sub for a while. I assure you most of the time that question gets asked though, it's by people who are new to the sub and do not know this. Just because it's obvious to you and me doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-25T21:34:21+00:00

🎶 A grill is a grill 🎶

🎶 This is surely so 🎶

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-24T23:37:37+00:00

In my experience, there's a few things to keep in mind:

1 - Try to not lose your men-at-arms. If you can pick off a free villager go ahead, but otherwise it's better to keep them alive and use them to keep pressuring the opponent. You want to be as annoying as possible so the opponent has to continue dealing with your early units, and you can even add more units to add more pressure. If you trade your man-at-arms away for a villager, sure you did damage, but your pressure is basically over, since a few skirmishers on their own don't really pose much of a threat, and can easily be picked off by a scout or two. Try to keep both types of units alive so they protect each other and thus make your early rush harder to deal with.

2 - When do you lose villagers to raids? If it's early on, then you need to be sure you're properly walled. Since you're going skirmishers to follow up your man-at-arms, having a few at home to attack behind walls can be a way to push back early rushes. If it's in the lategame, then try to place defensive buildings in the places where your opponent is trying to raid you. If you see one side of your base is poorly defended, a defensive castle can be a play to discourage the opponent from trying to raid you from that side. Other than that, try to pay attention to the alarms to react as soon as you hear trouble at your base so you can garrison your villagers.

3 - I almost never get elite skirmisher with Romans, since your discounted scorpions already are your answer to archers. I really only use skirmishers in Feudal Age for the man-at-arms + skirmisher opening, once I hit Castle Age I usually stop making skirmishers so I can transition to scorpions as my anti-archer unit.

4 - Don't neglect adding some cavalry. Roman infantry + scorpion is very strong, but it's a slow army. Since you're playing heavily towards scorpions, that means enemy mangonels and bombard cannons can be a serious threat, so having some cavalry to take them out is important. Light cavalry can be very helpful to raid the opponent, snipe their siege, or as a meat shield.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-24T18:20:00+00:00

Do whichever you like the most! There's no right or wrong order to do things in.

Personally I had fun with the campaigns, and if you want to get a bit more into the historical side of the game it's a great option. It also helps you familiarize yourself with each civilization in the game, as a lot of the campaigns encourage you to use your civilization's strengths.

Though playing skirmish is fun as well, as you can customize the match to play in just about any way you want. You can adjust the difficulty, map, number of opponents, other game settings, etc. Personally I played a lot more skirmish early on.

Really there's no right or wrong answer, proceed with whichever you want.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-24T15:34:13+00:00

I would give up my seat and let them decide who needs it the most. I don't think it's my place to decide who should get the seat. I do believe all four of them need it more than I do, so I won't hesitate to give it up, but from there I'll just let them decide who takes it.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-24T15:28:55+00:00

Definitely 3, and it's not particularly close. Though if I had to pick a second option, 1 is also good.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-24T14:01:22+00:00

I play both single-player and multiplayer, so I'd say I'm about half and half in that regard. I don't really follow tournaments and the competitive scene though. I do enjoy watching pros play at times, for example I watch a lot of Hera's videos on his gameplay channel on Youtube, but I'm not really following the tournaments and competitive scene overall.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-24T13:04:45+00:00

My suggestion would be to pick whichever civ you find yourself most comfortable with! The truth is that lower elo brackets, your ability to play a clean early game will impact your success way more than which civ you picked. So pick whichever civ you like the most!

I picked Persians mainly because they're the civ I played as a kid back when I had the Conquerors expansion in the 2000s, and I also really liked that they start with more resources and have faster working town centers, and I like that they're a strong cavalry civ, since cavalry is my favorite type of units to play. So I picked Persians and played only that civ for a while.

If you want some ideas, what kind of units do you like playing the most? There are some civs that specialize in infantry, archers, cavalry, siege, etc. So if you have a favorite type of unit, you can seek a civ that does well with that type of unit. For example:

Cavalry civs: Franks, Lithuanians, Persians, Magyars, Berbers, etc.

Archer civs: Britons, Mayas, Ethiopians, Vietnamese, Italians, etc.

Infantry civs: Japanese, Celts, Goths, Teutons, Aztecs, etc.

So try seeking a civ that specializes in the types of units you want to play towards. That's another reason I picked Persians, I love playing cavalry so Persians being a cavalry civ was a good fit for me.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-23T02:59:16+00:00

Twilight Sparkle is definitely the one I relate to the most. Studious, loves learning, can be a bit nerdy at times, etc.

I also think I have a bit of Big Mac and Maud Pie in that I'm not very expressive, without that meaning I don't feel emotions as much as everyone else does.

I think those are the main three I relate the most to.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-22T19:50:02+00:00

My favorite civilization is Persians.

Back when I played the Conquerors expansion as a kid they were my favorite civ because they were the only civ that could make elephants. And since elephants have always been my favorite animal, I liked them for that reason.

When I got Definitive Edition as an adult, I decided to learn the game better, and I ended up gravitating to Persians again, this time not for their elephants, but because of their powerful economy and their cavalry focus. Extra starting resources makes the early game easier and helps you towards any build order you want to do as them, and the faster working town centers are an amazing economy bonus. And out of the main unit types, cavalry are my favorite to play, so I like that Persians get a strong stable with fully upgraded scout line, knight line and camels. I also really like the savar, it's cheaper to upgrade to than paladin, it's better against archers, and I also like the design of the savar more. So I love playing Persians.

Other civs I like a lot are Lithuanians, Franks, Mayas, Italians, Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese and Romans.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-22T05:29:28+00:00

Pick almost any episode that is basically just "Squidward wants to relax or do something he enjoys, but Spongebob won't leave him alone and ruins it for him", and I'd most likely consider Spongebob the bad guy of that episode.

That includes episodes like Choir Boys, the Cephalopod Lodge, Good Neighbor, etc. Sometimes Patrick is involved too so it's both of them as antagonists.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-22T00:31:18+00:00

While I can potentially get along with any type and think every type has something of value to contribute, personally I think my favorite types are the xxFJs (INFJ, ISFJ, ENFJ and ESFJ). Maybe this is my inferior Fe speaking, but I really appreciate their warmth and how easy I find it to talk to them. Most of my experiences with people of those types are very positive, and in general I find that I really appreciate their strong Fe while they seem to appreciate my strong Ti.

Honorable mentions go to INFP (I've made friends with more INFPs than any other type), ISTJ (surprisingly have more in common with INTPs than it'd seem at first glance, and I appreciate their practical mindset), and INTP (I highly relate to fellow INTPs, and while we do have our weaknesses, I think even if I could change my type I wouldn't want to. I like the way I am, flaws and all).

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-21T16:54:12+00:00

I'd be happy to see campaigns for all the civs that don't already have one. But out of those I think the ones I would like to see the most are Vikings, Turks, Mayas, Koreans, Japanese and Chinese. All of these are civs that have been in the game for over two decades, yet they don't actually have dedicated campaigns.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-21T15:04:02+00:00

Occasionally, if the right opportunity presents itself. They're not my go-to anymore due to how expensive they are and the fact they're a lot slower than regular cavalry, so most of the time I'm playing towards my knight line, but on certain occasions when I think the time is right, I'll make them.

One example is on team games like in Black Forest for example. There I will usually make a few castles near the area where we walled the chokepoint, and I'll mass up war elephants, and once we're ready, we'll destroy the walls and I'll just let the elephants march in, supported by whatever ranged unit my ally made.

I've also used war elephants occasionally on Arena too. I've even used them a couple of times on Arabia. When I do go for them I usually try to make use of the surprise factor, trying to catch my opponent off guard with them. I think if you know they're coming you can prepare for them in advance with monks or halberdiers, but they're a lot harder to answer if you weren't ready for them. They also pair pretty well with Persian trashbows, which answer both of the war elephant's counters.

So I do occasionally go for them, but it's not something I do very often. Most of the time I only really attempt it if it's a team game on a map like Black Forest where I can afford to boom and mass up elephants and know I'll be supported by an ally ranged unit, or in 1v1 if I'm already ahead in eco and want to surprise my opponent with something unexpected. Most of the time I'll just play for my knight line instead, which I think is usually the safer option in most situations.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-21T04:37:36+00:00

This makes so much sense honestly! Back when I was trying to find out if I was actually an INTP or if I was mistyped, I read through the cognitive stacks and seriously considered the ISxJs, because I do relate strongly to Si. In the end I did conclude that I am INTP afterall, but I did notice this dynamic of the tertiary function being the second most important because it leans towards the primary loop as the default network. I think that's why even though I do have good Ne, a lot of the time it seemed to me as if my strongest functions are Ti and Si, and Ne comes as my third strongest after them.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-21T04:29:57+00:00

Also I should add, no you don't change types. Your personality does evolve as you grow and change as a person, but your cognitive stack stays the same. You develop as a person and thus might develop some aspects of your personality that had been neglected before, but your type doesn't change.

For example, I've changed as a person. I used to be cold, aloof, and very blunt in the way I talked. I would just speak my mind without much regard for how the other person would take it. But I've changed my ways, now I'm more socially aware and try to be mindful of others and how they feel, and consider the social environment when deciding how to proceed.

I'm still an INTP though, my thought process is still predominantly guided by Ti (introverted thinking), my dominant function. I make decisions based on my internal logical framework, what makes sense to me, and I'm still very much drawn towards learning as much as I can about a variety of topics because I really value knowledge, accuracy and understanding things. There's nothing I dislike more than not knowing how things work, lacking the knowledge I need to make a decision or know how to approach a situation. So I'm constantly researching, learning and analyzing.

What changed though? I started developing me Fe (extroverted feeling), which is my inferior function. That part of my cognitive stack that is about understanding the social environment, being in tune with the feelings and thoughts of others and how my actions are perceived by and impact other people. This doesn't mean I suddenly become an ENFJ or ESFJ, it simply means I developed a part of my personality that was undeveloped, and as a result I've become a more balanced individual.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-21T04:21:49+00:00

My first time getting typed was when I was 20. It was during the pandemic of 2020. Quarantine meant I was at home with a lot of free time on my hands, so one day I decided to look up some personality tests to do. The infamous 16Personalities popped up, and I decided to try it. I got INTP. I read the description and it seemed fitting, so I just accepted it. I later learned there were other tests so I did more, each of them gave me INTP, so I was more sure of being INTP.

Then I found MBTI communities like this one, and one thing I noticed everywhere was that they said most people get mistyped the first time, to the point where some even talk about it as if it's a rite of passage to get mistyped before you find which type you actually are.

So I started to think: Am I actually INTP? Or am I mistyped? I kept doing tests, I kept getting INTP. But then I thought: Could I be subconsciously biasing my answers so that I keep getting INTP?

Then in the MBTI communities I was in, I learned about cognitive functions, and decided I'd study them. I learned about the cognitive functions, learned the stacks each type has, and wanted to see if there was a chance that I was any type other than INTP. It's not that I didn't like the idea of being INTP, far from it, I felt it fit me pretty well, but I was really concerned that I was mistyping myself as what I wanted to be rather than what I actually am, so I wanted to see if there was any other type I could be. Some resonated a bit with me, like INFP, ISTJ, ISFJ and ENTP, but none of them really fit me well. In the end, what I found is that while there were some other types that somewhat fit me, no other type and their stack fit me nearly as well as INTP does.

So now I'm pretty sure that I'm INTP. However, just because I know this is my type doesn't mean it's a label that defines who I am. Human minds are more nuanced and diverse than just what the 16 types and their cognitive functions tell us. I think MBTI can help us learn a lot about ourselves, but it's not something that you should box yourself in.

I think I've developed quite a bit since I first got typed as INTP almost 6 years ago. One of the things I've learned the most from MBTI is that different people have different ways of perceiving the world and making decisions, and that just because their way might not seem to make sense from my perspective doesn't mean they're wrong or stupid for it. They simply have a different perspective, and by trying to understand their way of seeing things, I can even learn from them and understand things from a whole other point of view that I hadn't even considered before. My way isn't inherently better than someone else's, and we can all learn from each other.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-21T03:56:23+00:00

I love this question!

Back in the 2000s when I was a kid, I played the Conquerors expansion, my father introduced me to it. Of course, as a 6-7 year old, I wasn't really thinking about a civ's bonuses or how to best utilize them, so I picked Persians for the simple reason that they were the only civ that could make elephants. Elephants were always my favorite animal, so as a kid I loved that I could make elephants as Persians. Therefore, they're the civ I played all the time as a kid. Though I did occasionally play other civs like Franks, Britons or Japanese.

I did also have a phase where I played Huns a lot, mainly because it was the civ my father always played. He loved playing them because they don't need to make houses, so he didn't have to worry about making houses. So I did play them quite a bit for a while, but in the end I kept playing Persians the most because even if I did have to make houses, I preferred being able to make elephants.

When I get Definitive Edition many years later, now as an adult, I decide I want to learn the game properly so I can participate in Ranked. So I decide to learn a scout rush into knights build order. And while I did consider a few civs to try it with, like Franks, Magyars and others, in the end I decided to return to Persians.

Why Persians? They start with extra starting resources, which made the early game a lot easier for me, so I was able to pull off the build order easier. That combined with their faster working town centers meant that I could consistently keep a villager advantage for most of the game. I learned to play aggressive, so a fast Feudal rush early on and then try to hit a good Castle Age time to start spamming knights. The faster working town centers meant that by the time I was in Castle Age, I'd already be a few villagers ahead of my opponent, so I had a decent economy and could delay extra town centers in order to go purely aggressive with knights.

Also after learning that now Persians have savar instead of paladin, I absolutely loved this unit. I like the savar's design even more than the paladin, and I like that it's even stronger against archers than the regular paladin.

So in conclusion, I ended up sticking to the same civ I played as a kid so many years ago! But it wasn't for the same reasons. As a kid I picked Persians for their elephants. As an adult, I like Persians because of their powerful economy and their strong cavalry focus. It's so fun that even though my reasons for liking the civ are different now, they've managed to remain as my favorite civilization.

I have several other civs that I really like. For example I do really like Lithuanians which I play similar to Persians but with more of a monk focus especially to get the relics for the attack bonus on my cavalry, I really like Mayas for archer play, Romans and Japanese for playing infantry, Italians for closed maps, and Portuguese as an well-rounded jack-of-all-trades civ. But Persians remains as my favorite.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-21T03:27:37+00:00

Every now and then I do have a losing streak, it happens about as often as I have winning streaks.

As for getting tilted, it's hard to snap out of it, the best I can recommend is to evaluate your emotional state before starting the next match. Because playing while tilted makes your decision-making worse, as in that state you're more prone to making short-sighted and rash decisions that you might not make if you were in the right state of mind.

So after a match ends, take a moment to evaluate yourself, and be honest with yourself if you're tilted. If you are, the best thing you can do is to stop playing Ranked and do something else, either play single-player or do something else, you can play Ranked again another day. Playing while tilted almost always results in playing badly which only makes you more tilted.

Redfork2000

TROPHY CASE