pbguy1211 Posted May 18, 2003 Posted May 18, 2003 I think it's safe to say that for all intensive purposes, this game is dead on the zone. There are hardly any RM's out there (and the ones there are mostly rooks and LOW intermediate players), and the majority of the games are lame ass scenarios. Not even good ones... *sniffle* Can we get a 21 gun salute?
Guest DarthMaulUK Posted May 18, 2003 Posted May 18, 2003 Encourage them to visit here to improve themselves. They could learn alot about decent RM playing from the Strategy guides and tips on this website ;-) DMUK
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 18, 2003 Posted May 18, 2003 Really good idea. We have to bring more people here or this is going to die...really die.
another_trooper Posted May 20, 2003 Posted May 20, 2003 I never played a lot on the Zone cuz it has an amazing number of bugs and everytime i wanted to play i had to make a new account because it said that my old one didnt exist. . .
R5D4 Posted May 20, 2003 Posted May 20, 2003 Mostly i play on the zone. but there are indeed less good rm plays BUT I DONT GIVE UP !! i join the zone 2nite
pbguy1211 Posted May 20, 2003 Author Posted May 20, 2003 well, i now rarely lose in 1v1 games... and i'm good.... but not great. but there are fewer people, and less skilled people at that
pbguy1211 Posted May 20, 2003 Author Posted May 20, 2003 oh and for further proof there are fewer good people... one of the guys from the drunk clan and one from the m7 clan were all too eager to have me join them recently... without a tryout of any kind. (but they have seen me play at least...)
angbandadmin Posted May 22, 2003 Posted May 22, 2003 up until 2 weeks ago i played 3 or 4 RM games a day on the zone for like 2 months. you just have to be patient.
pbguy1211 Posted May 22, 2003 Author Posted May 22, 2003 well i just got AoK (ok you can stop laughing now, I know I'm 5 years behind) so I'm gonna play that for a little and learn the good strats there. There's more variety of troops it seems there. Archers are pretty cool.
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 23, 2003 Posted May 23, 2003 LOL! You're gonna get tired of it. It's not as good as SWGB. Tip: Get tons of Paladins. That's a common strat...
pbguy1211 Posted May 23, 2003 Author Posted May 23, 2003 well, there's less strategy involved, i think. ie: no power cores for buildings, no air but there are so many different trooper-ish units. you've got the dudes w/ swords, swear throwing guys, spear wielding guys, archers, then mounter archers, knights, etc... foot soldiers seem a little more complicated.
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 24, 2003 Posted May 24, 2003 It's heavily generic. You're gonna start to feel weird when you see Arab Cavalry or Asian Cavalry with european armors, swords, bows....
Sithmaster_821 Posted May 27, 2003 Posted May 27, 2003 Massing knights is always popular, but I tended to prefer the mass ranged strat, with an infantry meat sheild. Longbows in a group of 20+ make mince meat out of anyone, and the mayan plumie/eagle combo was just as fun. As for the zone, thats basically the state I left it in about 9 months ago. Even in games that explicitly said GOOD players I got low inters. And dont join the drunk clan. My experience has been that they're a bunch of @$$holes (some of them at least).
pbguy1211 Posted May 28, 2003 Author Posted May 28, 2003 i like the mounted troop aspect... of some of the units. archers seem to be great in mass. you aren't gonna beat a mass of crossbows. Would a cavalry archer be the equivalent of a strike mech? and i have no desire to join any clan. ever. but it's nice to know you're a respected player by others... that's all.
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 28, 2003 Posted May 28, 2003 Not exactly. They are hit-and-fade units. Strikes are anti-trooper. Not exactly the same thing but pretty similar.
Sithmaster_821 Posted May 29, 2003 Posted May 29, 2003 Yeah, cav archers really excel as raiders and annoyers
pbguy1211 Posted May 30, 2003 Author Posted May 30, 2003 my thing with archers is that i can never tell when they're hitting anything. it's not like their arrows stick in people. P.S. Britons Elite Longbowmen Rule!
pbguy1211 Posted May 31, 2003 Author Posted May 31, 2003 is it me or the unique units in this game not seem to be so "unique" insofar as they don't excel vs any particular unit. Or am I missing something? Is there a unique unit which will always own others? Like an air speeder would own a mech in SWGB?
Sithmaster_821 Posted June 1, 2003 Posted June 1, 2003 Mangundia own siege (not as good a eagles, but good for a ranged unit). Mamlukes tear through cav beter than any unit in the game (building calvary vs the saracens is generally a bad idea). Huskarls are the best anti archer units in the game. The uu's really just variations of the standard units, but each one has a different theme (eg longbows have uber range, chukunus have machine guns, plumies have speed armor and hp, etc.)
pbguy1211 Posted June 1, 2003 Author Posted June 1, 2003 Originally posted by Sithmaster_821 The uu's really just variations of the standard units, but each one has a different theme (eg longbows have uber range, chukunus have machine guns, plumies have speed armor and hp, etc.) That's what i thought. Not much creativity there. I was a tad disappointed. Then again this game's older than dirt so i guess I shouldn't expect much!
lukeiamyourdad Posted June 1, 2003 Posted June 1, 2003 You can't expect much from a game with that many civs.
Sithmaster_821 Posted June 1, 2003 Posted June 1, 2003 Yeah, you try making up 18 units that are incredibly different from the existing ones. Some are unique though (elephants, war wagons, throwing axemen, teutonic knights, mamelukes)
lukeiamyourdad Posted June 2, 2003 Posted June 2, 2003 Well mamekukes are basically camels but they throw swords(or unusually big knives) so I guess they are unique but teutonic knights are just uber Champions...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.