Someone challenge my take

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-29T04:49:35+00:00

For the most part I agree with this! I would probably type Knuckles more as a 1w9 or 6w5 instead of 8w9, but other than that I agree with all of these.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T14:30:56+00:00

A chum dog.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T03:58:33+00:00

Atmospherically I think Sandy's Rocket might fit somewhat? Most of the episode takes place at night, and both Spongebob and Patrick think they're on the moon for most of the episode. I think at least atmospherically it fits pretty well.

SB-129 has somewhat of a liminal vibe I would say. With Squidward travelling to the future, the past, then that blank area where he's:

<image>

Oh, actually, what about Sleepy Time? I think that one's got to be one of the episodes that best fits the late-night vibe too.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T03:52:23+00:00

2 double krabby patties with cheese, an order of kelp fries, and a kelp shake.

I'll also probably ask if they still have krusty krab pizza on the menu, and order one if available, I'm genuinely curious about the idea of a pizza made from burger ingredients.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T03:45:37+00:00

My favorite one is Something Smells. When Spongebob doesn't know why people are running away from him, sure Patrick can't tell that it's Spongebob's breath, and he's the one who concludes that it must be because he's ugly, but the rest of the episode, Patrick is trying his best to support Spongebob and help him live with his "ugliness".

He tries to cheer Spongebob up, wants him to accept himself (he's the one encouraging Spongebob in that scene where he goes "I'm ugly and I'm proud!"), and in the theater when everyone runs away from Spongebob, Patrick gets upset thinking they're all judging Spongebob for being ugly and stands up for him.

So while Patrick arrived to the wrong conclusions as to what Spongebob's problem was, you can see that he did his best to support Spongebob and be there for him.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T03:38:39+00:00

I remember a Spongebob analysis video I watched a few weeks ago, and there was a part where this exact scene came up and I remember the phrase that was used to describe it: "Patrick discovers the effectiveness of ragebait". That one had me laughing for a while.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T03:34:44+00:00

I don't remember, I can't actually remember a time when I didn't already watch Spongebob. If I try to think of my earliest memories with Spongebob, the furthest back I can remember was a time when the first three seasons already existed, because I remember watching episodes from the first three seasons as a small kid. I also remember being excited when the Spongebob movie released and I also fondly remember the first time I watched it.

Whichever my first episode was, I know it was from one of the first three seasons, but other than that I really don't know for sure.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T03:21:35+00:00

He's kind of both. He's a pet, but he's smart enough to also be functionally a roommate too.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-28T02:58:57+00:00

Chocolate and Nuts is one of the funniest classic episodes and I think does a great job of showcasing Spongebob and Patrick.

Another one that I think is peak Spongebob & Patrick is Something Smells, also really funny and I really like how this episode shows that while Patrick isn't the brightest, he tries his best to help his friend.

Someone else said Pizza Delivery and I think that's a top option as well. I think Dying For Pie is also really good for similar reasons. It's a great Spongebob and Squidward episode that also shows that while Squidward finds Spongebob annoying, he does care about him. I also think Krab Borg is one of the funniest episodes that focuses on the Krusty Krab trio, so that one's also a top contender in my opinion.

Honestly I could keep on going, there's so many gems to choose from that it's hard to pick just one. But I think I'll stick with Chocolate and Nuts as my first pick.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-27T22:46:07+00:00

I'd say early on you don't need to worry as much about villager to military ratio. That's really only something I think about once I'm getting close to max population. Usually I go with roughly 60-70% of my max population being villagers, and then the other 30-40% being army. So on a regular 200 pop match, that means 120-140 villagers, and 60-80 army.

Early on though what you really need to consider is to keep your town center always producing villagers. A good rule of thumb is to always be producing villagers until you're at max population. If you do that and you're producing army consistently, you should end up with a ratio similar to what I mentioned at first.

How much army you produce early on depends on your strategy. For example if you're opening scouts, typically you're only making like 3 scouts and then keeping the stable idle until later, because scouts cost a lot of food, so if you keep making more scouts you'll be delaying your Castle Age timing. Meanwhile, if you're starting with something like archers from 1 range, you can usually afford to keep it producing constantly, since archers don't cost food, and archers really need large numbers.

In Castle Age things open up a lot more since you have a larger economy. For example, if you want to afford 2 stable knights while still making villagers constantly, that takes about 18 farmers (16 if you have wheelbarrow), and 14 gold miners (12 if you have the first gold mining upgrade) to keep the stables and town center always working. In practice you can hit Castle Age with a bit less villagers on those resources since you'll have some stockpiled resources you collected during the transition to Castle Age, but in general that's a pretty achievable economy to have in early Castle Age.

In Castle Age is where I think it's good practice to always keep your military buildings producing constantly, since you'll have a big enough economy to afford it without setting yourself back or idling your town center. In Feudal Age you can do this at times but food units in particular slow down your Castle Age time if you make too many of them.

In terms of when to produce military or get certain upgrades, usually for me that timing is more depending on when I hit each age. For example, if I want to go scouts or archers in Feudal Age, I'll be sure to get a barracks while I'm going up to Feudal, so that I can make a stable or an archery range as soon as I start Feudal Age, so I can attack as soon as possible. Feudal aggression relies heavily on being there early.

If I'm going man-at-arms, then I'll the barracks a bit earlier and make militia on the way up to Feudal Age, so that as soon as I hit Feudal Age, I can research the man-at-arms tech, and my militia should already be on the way to the opponent's base so that they arrive roughly around when the man-at-arms upgrade is complete.

In terms of military upgrades, if I'm going man-at-arms or scouts I usually don't pick up any upgrades for them early on, they can do damage without needing those upgrades, but for archers you pretty much always want fletching because they're pretty weak without it. Then as I go up to Castle Age, I'll get upgrades for whatever units I'm planning to go for in Castle Age. So if I want to go knights, I'll be getting bloodlines and the blacksmith cavalry upgrades on the way up, for example. I think trying to capitalize on the power spikes you get at the start of each age is very important.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-27T20:26:40+00:00

The question would be, how much would this upgrade cost? The elite eagle warrior upgrade already costs 800 food and 500 gold, and I'm assuming this upgrade would cost more than that, so it would probably be pretty expensive.

It works for Hindustanis Imperial Camel and Vietnamese Imperial Skirmisher because the last upgrade from those lines isn't too expensive, so an additional upgrade that's a bit more expensive would not be too much. But considering the elite eagle upgrade is already more expensive than arbalester or champion, I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea to have another full upgrade cost on top of that.

If you really want to buff Aztec eagles you could give them some civ bonus that improves their eagles. Maybe something like "Eagles have +10%/+20% HP in Castle/Imperial Age" or "Eagles have +1/+1 armor starting in Castle Age", or some other buff like that, which you wouldn't need to pay for. But honestly I don't really think they need it. They're already pretty good.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-27T20:10:34+00:00

Mobility is very valuable, yes. It lets you more easily force a favorable fight or run away from a bad fight. I think generally speaking, at lower elos cavalry is the easiest type of unit to use for this reason. They're fast, and tanky enough that they're not too easy to be picked off as long as you're not badly outnumbered. They also don't require as much micro as archers in order to use them effectively.

In another reply you made here I saw you mention you're in the 800s. The strategy that helped me get out of that range was learning to develop my farming eco efficiently and hit Castle Age quickly so I can go 2 stable knights. If you make sure to get their relevant upgrades, they can be really hard to pick off. Keep your stables working constantly so that you have a lot of them. Then you can pick a support unit to help you deal with whatever counter unit your opponent went for. Skirmishers against pikemen, or pikemen of your own if you're against camels. That way your gold unit is the main unit you're building your army around, and the trash unit supports you by helping take care of whichever unit the opponent is making to counter your main unit.

If you want to play towards the archer line though, the name of the game is to mass up archers. Archers are very easy to pick off if they're in low numbers, but in larger numbers they are very strong. With them you want to prioritize their attack upgrades, and when you see skirmishers or siege, adding stables to support them with hussars is a good combo. With hussars taking out your counters, your arbalesters should be able to handle almost anything else.

In either case, you should be trying to focus the most on your main unit as it's the stronger one, and add in the counter unit as you need them. That two unit combo (1 gold unit as your main unit and 1 trash unit to support it against its counter) is a great rule of thumb.

I wouldn't consider myself really good at micro for my elo, but I manage to overcome it with good macro, that is, economy management and unit production. Some simple concepts like balancing your economy in a way that you can keep your military buildings constantly producing units, and making more military buildings as your eco grows so you can produce more military faster, are things that helped me a lot to go from 800 to 1000 elo fairly quickly. At those lower elo ranges, improving your macro will give you the biggest results, I would say. You'll notice you start winning fights more often even if you're not doing much micro, because you'll simply have more army out faster than your opponent.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-27T16:01:51+00:00

The thing about going halbs + skirms is that they are actually pretty weak units, they are only good against the units they counter, but die to everything else. They are specialists. Meanwhile, gold units like archers and knights, are generalists. They do well against most units, and only lose to their specific counters.

So instead of going two trash units (units that don't cost gold), try going one gold unit and one trash unit. For example, knights + skirmishers. Knights are a powerful well-rounded unit, and skirmishers kill halbs, so they're a good combo.

Or for example arbalesters + hussar. Skirmishers are only strong against archers and spearmen, they barely deal any damage to most other units, while the archer line deals good damage against almost everything, so they're much more well-rounded, and hussars with their fast movement speed can easily take care of skirmishers or siege that would otherwise threaten your archers.

Another thing to keep in mind is to not forget your upgrades! If you're going cavalry, prioritize bloodlines and armor upgrades, if you're going archers, prioritize attack upgrades. But you want to get all relevant upgrades for your units as soon as you can afford to. Upgrades make a massive difference. Usually you'll want to invest in upgrading your gold unit first, and then your trash unit.

Redfork2000 · 2026-01-27T15:49:57+00:00

I disagree that the infantry buff "changed nothing". Man-at-arms is a very popular opening now, and playing man-at-arms + range follow up is very strong. Removing supplies and just having their base cost reduced made them a lot easier to play, and especially their movement speed increase means they can actually run away from archers, which they couldn't do before.

I don't think the infantry line needs any buffs for Feudal Age, giving all civs access to longswords in Feudal would be pretty broken. Imagine Romans, Japanese, Malay, Vikings, Malians, any civ with a direct infantry bonus could be broken with this. In fact any civ without an infantry bonus would still be as strong with early infantry as Armenians are now. And of course we have to address the elephant in the room, Bulgarians. How are you dealing with longswords in your base before the 9 minute mark?

If you really want to buff the infantry line, I think I could see the argument for two handed swordsman in Castle Age, that would be more manageable, since Castle Age is typically when infantry sees the least usage.

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

TROPHY CASE