DarthTenor Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Definately the long game. I don't know about everyone else but after studying the tech tree, the civs are more distinctive in the later techs. Aside from the small bonuses the naboo (+10% nova collection) and rebels (+5% farmers cpacity) get, All civs seem rather balanced in the beginning. So you don't get all those short game civs like the Chinese and mongols in AOK who both had early bonuses. All the unique techs are researched in the fourth age thus bringing the distinctiveness of each race/civ in tech 4. (Also their unique unit in tech 3 from the fortress). Don't you think the game would be more fun if you played through tech 4? I think it would be more fun rather than going for the quick kill. Always hated seeing recorded games from AOK where the game is over within moments that they reached the feudal age. I know it's still prevelant in GB. All in all I guess it's a matter of taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GIR Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Yes there are new tech levels that you could get to if you played longer but this is a RTS for crying out loud. It would be challenging if you take the long game but it's harder if you rush. I think that people should earn to get to the later tech levels, I mean if you can't defend a tech level one attack then u my freind are sad. You've gotta use rescources to make rescources, and if you don't you won't survive tech level 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTenor Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 GIR I understand your point. I consider myself an above average player but I did not have fun fighting against people who constantly rush. I know the basics of defending against the rush/Flush but it was nearly impossible to win against those civs that everyone keeps playing. (Example mongols chinese and mayans aztecs) I loved playing the civs that are more interesting like the Turks, Byzantines, Sracacens and all the othere civs that have later tech bonuses. They were much harder to use as a viable civ. I've had games in GB that were a blast to play. Noone rushed and everyone got to tech 3 without to mush worry. The true fun came when each of us where trying to find awa to breakthrough the others defenses. Grant it the pop limit didn't help but it was fun trying to see what each other was trying to bring at each other. I brough some jedi's pummels mechs and artillery. he countered with some bounty hunters and mech destroyers. I brought in some air support and grenadiers mounties. He then brought in some troopers it was a see-saw battle but is was GASP! Fun. I'm not saying that the rush/flush is a bad tactic. I've used it myself and won handedly. But It wasn't ;to my surprise!- Satisfying. I'm here to have fun. TO the unkown defender there is almost no way to stop it. I on the other hand expect a rush to come. Sure there are defenses for it but it seems too much of a chore. (Espescially in AOK) It seems easier in GB than in AOK to defend and early rush. Most likely because of all the ranged troopers out there. There are no skirmisher type unit that counters the trooper other than the jedi in tech 2. Sure it maybe a challenge for the defender to get thruogh the tech trees, but what's the harm of just wanting to have a good game with nice big battles? I mean if you can't defend a tech level one attack then u my freind are sad. Tell me how would you know I can't defend a tech 1 attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GIR Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Most of the time i was talking about you but that time i wasn't. I was talking about people in general and how rush games usually end in the 1st tech level so im not making fun of your post all im just trying to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Rushing is apart of this game...if you don't have it in the game it would be slightly less interesting to me...I don't necessarily want to play a 5 hour long game just because someone wants to play a long game...that would take up a bit to much of my time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GIR Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 I like long battles too and they can be fun when your marching armies across a flat plain, i find that very cool, but since this is rush topic im trying to send my point to both kins of players. (Note: I am not discriminating players from each other), and yes i do believe you can fend off lvl 1 attacks but there are some people that are just plain sad and can't. (I hope that didn't sound too corny). :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: :bdroid2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord Tirion Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 General: I play a mixture of every strat and tactic. It all depends on what my scouts pick up from my oponent and the type of map. But mainly, I try to drain my opponent's ecomony systematically closing him/her in and then finally going in for the kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTenor Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 I don't necessarily want to play a 5 hour long game just because someone wants to play a long game...that would take up a bit to much of my time... Again I guess it's a matter of personal taste. 5 hours?!?!?! I couldn't imagine playing that long. agood 1:15 (Gametime of course) Is ideal for me. By the way isn't actual gametime faster than normal time? 5 more days!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQuiGonJinn Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 I hate to break it to some of you but this isnt a WAR GAME its a Real-Time STRATEGY Game, if you dont believe me look it up on every site, ites Catagorized as Strategy, and Rushing isnt exactly a Strategy its a Instant Death Move more, Strategy envolves moving your armies around the map, getting the Strategist position launching strikes at the enemy, not sending waves of Storm Troopers in Tech 1 to annilate the Enemy. I know alot of people have trouble seeing this but thats how it is, everyone I've talked to seem to agree and i know many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GIR Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Then the people you talked to must be wrong. Rushing is a tactic. You can use rshing in many different ways not just letting all hell loose on your enemies. Any idiot can do that. When you rush you can always hide your units in the trees or something. You're still rushing your units there your just not attacking. You see there are many ways to rush, not just one. :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQuiGonJinn Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Also, If Rushing is what RTS is all about, why dont you see Developers of all these RTS games making the AI Rush en masse in Tech 1 like some of you so claim is the best way to go? The AI seems to always Adhere to what Strategy really is, Aquiring Resources, getting the Strategist points and so on. People who just rush in every MP game they play just ruin the game unless all players involved are into it. Sure everyone plays how they like no one could stop that unless your in a league or Tournement but can any of you honestly say building millions of towers all over the map or sending tons of Storm Troopers into a persons base in Tech 1 and wiping them out that fulfilling? Especially if you do that to Newbies? If the answer is yes then you pick on newbies and that is pathetic. They pay money for the game to enjoy it just as much as Experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GIR Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 I don't pick on newbies. I don't consider wiping somebody else out quickly fullfilling, but it is always good to have the upper hand on somebody early on. The answer to your question on why the developers dont include rushing in the AI is because of the scenarios. Thats why. :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 rushing's good it separates the men from the boys:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GIR Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Rushing doesn't really separate anybody except people who know how to rush and who doesn't, but people need to stop whining and learn to cope with it. :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQuiGonJinn Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 this is a good debate, I've seen this type of debate on many RTS game forums, people are as opinionated on this as the "abortion" topics. I dont think anyone is ever going to Really come to any conclusion on this though so most everyone seems to have good points in favor or not in favor of rushing. Well in any Tournements or leagues for RTS Games have they banned Rushing Tactics? or are those legal? I've never been in one so im curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GIR Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Most tournaments they don't care, but iv'e played in some AOE tournaments and they've banned rushing so it depends on the person. I for one am cool with it, i already know hosw to defend one so iv'e won many games. :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: :naboo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.