Settings

[Captain Nemo]

Dick move B-2 rush opponent's capitol at 5f11

Damn, you must be a noob! You really gonna let enemy have a 85 or 100 wood capitol at a potentiel double/tripple mine?

yes losing the morale and your hero production is very worth it. Besides, it's rather easy to get cap on all mines in mod dm later on. And u wont need much mining untill later on. First it's wood/food.

I wouldn't call it a dick move tho, it's annoying to get bombed sure, but I don't care if they hit cap or 5 of my siege fac buildings.

[lightnessking.]

Dick move B-2 rush opponent's capitol at 5f11

Damn, you must be a noob! You really gonna let enemy have a 85 or 100 wood capitol at a potentiel double/tripple mine?

yes losing the morale and your hero production is very worth it. Besides, it's rather easy to get cap on all mines in mod dm later on. And u wont need much mining untill later on. First it's wood/food.

I wouldn't call it a dick move tho, it's annoying to get bombed sure, but I don't care if they hit cap or 5 of my siege fac buildings.

o my bad, my brain didn't figure it was about dm lol

[tool]

gogogo mod tl winner

[assys]

Is btw anyone willed to explain me why exactly grenwar does enjoy such a bad reputation?

Ease and history.

It's the easiest setting by far, and a setting where they're a really low skill ceiling, because it deliberately strips away, or at least minimizes CONSIDERABLY, a ton of aspects of player skill. Hard setting with high skill ceilings get respect because of that, and grenwars is the complete opposite of them.

History is a big part too. Historically, grenwars is a product of indy sh, by way of the series of offshoots that eventually led to indy sh no siege/religion/hand cannons. The scrubs pretty much decided that countering was noob too. So impwar, dragwar, and grenwar were born around the same times. Impwar died very quickly, as melee units require too much skill. Dragwar died pretty quickly too, because speedy gun units mean you can eco raid people, which is BAD because that might involve skill. Also, both of the cav alternatives meant you couldn't be a complete scrub with regard to your economy and still have a decent chance at winning. Grenwar survived because it was the least skillful of the alternatives. The players who played it, were predominantly scrubs, and the lowest of the low in scrub-hierarchy; they were so bad, other scrubs would even make fun of them sometimes.

Let's put it this way, how many settings can you name that require *significantly less* skill than grenwars, even including any settings that no one EVER plays? Yeah, pretty short list isn't it? I mean, even mid sh no rush 75 or something is LEAPS AND BOUNDS beyond the level of grenwar.

If there are less possibilities people usually automatically start searching new ones to be on the top.
In my opinion there is not something such as a noob sett. There is just something like a sett that is played by beginners/noobs.

Which basicaly again means that there is no pro sett or noob sett.
Discuss

[BigRon]

No rush games are the best (srs)

[Omega]

Is btw anyone willed to explain me why exactly grenwar does enjoy such a bad reputation?

History is a big part too. Historically, grenwars is a product of indy sh, by way of the series of offshoots that eventually led to indy sh no siege/religion/hand cannons. The scrubs pretty much decided that countering was noob too. So impwar, dragwar, and grenwar were born around the same times. Impwar died very quickly, as melee units require too much skill. Dragwar died pretty quickly too, because speedy gun units mean you can eco raid people, which is BAD because that might involve skill. Also, both of the cav alternatives meant you couldn't be a complete scrub with regard to your economy and still have a decent chance at winning. Grenwar survived because it was the least skillful of the alternatives. The players who played it, were predominantly scrubs, and the lowest of the low in scrub-hierarchy; they were so bad, other scrubs would even make fun of them sometimes.

Thats not how I remember it happened. It was basically a product of the grenmaker (wing) often deciding who would eventually win the game in indy sh no s/r/hc. So basically the one who could produce most grens "deserved" to win the game. Or at least there was a competition of who infact could produce most grens. Therefore at some point the counter (imps) would be viewed as ruining the game, as the only thing that mattered was who could make most grens. So the other units were banned so we could find out. Ecokill would obviusly also be spoiling the grenmassing comparison; sometimes grenrace was played too, but after all that was too boring. I was pretty much the head speaker for banning ecokills lol(sry yeah I was noob at the time). People ecokilled anyway, but it wasn't really until mortal came along we all started to open our eyes to gren micro. A year later there were some pretty good players playing grenwars, and it was infact very fun. It was fun all along I might add.

This is how I remember it, and I was there for the entire thing. Both from indy sh to indy sh no s/r/hc to grenwar.

I don't recall anyone ever making impwars, but did see a goonwar sometimes. It wasn't like it ever was a "set" tho, and I never saw it in the beginning. Only when we wanted to mix things up cause of too much grenwar lol

PS: I say "we" all the time cause I was part of the community, but really I personally wanted indy sh back on the menu as going cav was my fav thing.

Interesting interpretation. I don't think what I'm describing and what you're describing are really contradictory though; what you're describing is probably more of what was running through the head of the average grenwar player though. There definitely was a little bit of impwar, and a far amount of dragwars that I saw, at least during USA prime-times, but they didn't persist for very long because grenwar took hold.

[Captain Nemo]

Well if u saw them they must have been there. But i didn't see any in the euro hours. I don't think grenwar was chosen because it was the easiest, i believe it was because the grens would win the sh games. Idk how many times i've seen the imps saved u comment and possibly a 1v1 challenge grens only afterwards.

I know u think grens were maybe chosen unconsiensely (help med spell) because the other things were too hard but i don't think so. It was chosen because the thing that mattered was who could make most. And of course grens were the best unit for this comparison. And the way i experienced it, it was never a battle between impwar goonwar and grenwar, but basically just a smooth transition from indy sh no s/r/hc to grenwar.

[Arntzen]

Haha, "help med spell". U actually speaking danenglish now? I looked it up btw: consciously.

I remember goonwar. It was also played in TL back then.

[Captain Nemo]

I was writing from the iPad, and did a few mishits Which is also why I didn't bother looking it up. I got much better english dictionary on my comp...

[Omega]

An interesting question here, is, if imps were what won games, would people play impwar now, or would it still be grenwar?

The thing is though, imps *did* win games. That's why so many players hated them. They hated them because imps messed up their default and easy option of just getting more of a certain unit, specifically an easy unit to produce that doesn't involve a lot of complexity, than their opponent.

The occasional 1v1 gren only challenges afterwards was because people fucked up, with skilled use of imps, the win they thought they were going to get by simply outproducing their opponent.

You might say that grens won more games than imps, and that's true, but that's only because grens can win games with very unintelligent usage, and that wasn't true with imps in the metagame of the time. Grens became the default choice because they were the choice that required the least amount of skill compared to the other options, and not because they won games. Even the reasoning that says grens were chosen because it was about who could make the most of them suggests that skill-minimization was an important, if not the primary (or even exclusive) factor. After all, with everything else being equal, impwar and dragwar are also about who can produce the most units, with the key difference being that impwar and dragwar allow other skillful ways of attaining victory, and do that much more so than grenwar ever could.

To put it another way, why wasn't the default wing strategy to start with imps on wing and rush hard? It was damn effective, and along with a pocket that made grens with speed and also rushed, it was *vastly* better than the typical, easy cookie-cutter play most everyone would do. But it was hard and required vastly more skill than the default option, so most people didn't do it. Or, another question, why not have the wing go grens and rush hard, along with the pocket rushing hard with imps? Again, vastly better than some easy cookie-cutter play most people were doing, but it was hard, and it was especially hard for the players that happened to be on wing because they couldn't just rely on winning by making more dudes, they had to have more skill than that for it to be effective at all (Don't kill opposing pocket drags, or sufficiently deter them? You lose. Spend too much time trying to get shots in on drags and not killing the grens that are picking off your grens? You lose. Don't incapacitate the opposing wing quickly enough, and the opposing pocket gets some imps down there to rip through your grens while their drags kill your pocket's imps? You lose.).

Or another interesting question, why would you say that that siege and hand cannons ended up getting banned? Obviously, a lot of reasons can be identified, and you're free to do that, but I think you'll recognize that a lot of those reasons, if not all of them, are pretty much synonymous with them involving too much skill to use, as well as too much skill to effectively play against (like say, by actually using them).

As an interesting note, the decisions in the chain from pure indy sh no rules, to grenwar, are primarily wing-motivated decisions, and more specifically, host-motivated decisions.

P.S. you meant to spell unconsciously, which is conscious, with un as a prefix to negate it, and ly at the end because it's an adjective. I don't know if the prefix/suffix part of that explanation helps in remembering the spelling, probably not actually, but meh.

[Captain Nemo]

An interesting question here, is, if imps were what won games, would people play impwar now, or would it still be grenwar?

Interesting question and I do have an answer. No, not to the extend grenwar was played. Swords in middle would be the excellent imp equivalent, tho not as fast. But these units win most games, yet swordwar tho played never really caught on. And it is for the exact reasons you described - there were too many other ways other than massing which made u in. And the unit massing is key.

Where u go wrong tho is here:

Even the reasoning that says grens were chosen because it was about who could make the most of them suggests that skill-minimization was an important, if not the primary (or even exclusive) factor.

This may seem wierd but u are giving the indy players of that time much too credit by thinking they actually knew this. No, the massing was concidered the hard part, the other things "cheap" ways to win the game... Obviously exaggerating a bit since going cav (both) in pocket was entirely standard. Siege were also considered a cheap way to beat the other team. As the real good player would try to be "better" than the other by outmassing. Reli same (I still hate that shit), tho I never got the HC ban.

My point: Grenwar was not chosen because it was easiest, it was chosen because it was the best way of getting the "massing wins" game. That it happened to also be the thing that required lowest skill was not something anyone were conscience about. It may have been the unconscious, but the massing part was considered the high skilled part.

To put it another way, why wasn't the default wing strategy to start with imps on wing and rush hard? It was damn effective, and along with a pocket that made grens with speed and also rushed, it was *vastly* better than the typical, easy cookie-cutter play most everyone would do.

This strat was used sometimes, but a strategy like that will never become standard because it relies on the surprise element and the assumption your opponents will do gren wing and goon pocket (the true standard). Most pockets did both imps and goons which is why the speed inf didn't work as well as super goons rush to the pocket (he would of course send goons to the dying wing... not saying speedinf wouldn't work btw, but u might need a halb or 2, which will be slow). Obviously late game the speed grens and imps wont do so well. Grens are wing because they're slow, and cav pocket because it's fast. Thats the main reason as I see it. Going nonrush cav on wing and grens in pocket, you'll have more grens on the wing and possibly win the game that way. Cav on wing only works in rush, which was frequently used in 3v3 especially (when we got a lil better).

A whole other reason was people were noobs, so doing the standard things were just something u did.

Or another interesting question, why would you say that that siege and hand cannons ended up getting banned?

Yeah I responded to this already but mainly because the "fair" way of winning was by outmassing the other. Any other way was not, like u say, considered too hard, but actually considered noobish. Even though it was the other way around.