Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Moderator: taco

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Omega »

4v4W.jpg
4v4W.jpg (23.13 KiB) Viewed 11170 times
Enjoy!
Image

P-51
Epic Multiplayer Scenario Team Member
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:19 pm
Xfire: p51p51
Lobby Username: «•FRMB•»P-51
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by P-51 »

Weak civ fails ftf

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Omega »

Weak? It's one of the most aggressive 4v4 mid dm wing civs you'll ever see, and the only reason I didn't say most aggressive is because you have things that consist purely of blind aggression//flooding like knights.
Image

P-51
Epic Multiplayer Scenario Team Member
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:19 pm
Xfire: p51p51
Lobby Username: «•FRMB•»P-51
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by P-51 »

Its not a great 4v4 civ and could have a better distribution of points.

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Omega »

P-51 wrote:Its not a great 4v4 civ and could have a better distribution of points.
Care to elaborate? I'd love to know what you think is a better distribution of points.
Image

Elite
Advanced Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:37 pm
Lobby Username: Elite

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Elite »

Remember p51 this is Mid DM no rules, not that bullshit no siege crap you people played on AoC. You know, where you both mass catas and archers and whoever hero rapes first wins?

P-51
Epic Multiplayer Scenario Team Member
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:19 pm
Xfire: p51p51
Lobby Username: «•FRMB•»P-51
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by P-51 »

Elite wrote:Remember p51 this is Mid DM no rules, not that bullshit no siege crap you people played on AoC. You know, where you both mass catas and archers and whoever hero rapes first wins?
Thank you Elite I did not understand that even after seeing the massive amount of points used up on siege weapons. You must be an important member on these forums.

P-51
Epic Multiplayer Scenario Team Member
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:19 pm
Xfire: p51p51
Lobby Username: «•FRMB•»P-51
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by P-51 »

Omega wrote:
P-51 wrote:Its not a great 4v4 civ and could have a better distribution of points.
Care to elaborate? I'd love to know what you think is a better distribution of points.
This civ would work better in a 2v2. In a 4v4 it would be wiser to focus on the archers and swords and let the pocket use siege so he could support you. This will help you with the pop cap and also to be easier to organize your army which will be very useful when you get knight rushed.

Building only archers and swords will also be cheaper and more efficient when fighting because you will be able to create a larger mass of units and do it faster and cheaper than your opponent will. Let your ally worry about supporting you with siege, that's what pockets are there for. The civ points should be used more on your archers and other stuff rather than the siege. I would also question the mountain combat bonus but that is more of a personal preference I guess.

Elite
Advanced Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:37 pm
Lobby Username: Elite

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Elite »

Sry man AOC mid dm'ers playing with stupid rules for as long as I can remember, doesn't exactly help my opinion of them.

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Omega »

P-51 wrote:This civ would work better in a 2v2.
In a 2 vs 2 there's significantly more distance between players, and the available population is much larger. Due to the first factor, namely distance, highly aggressive strategies are weaker. This needs to be played as a highly aggressive strategy to win. Additionally, due to the lack of sword cost reduction, this civilization will be even worse in 2 vs 2 due to the increased pop cap and increased distance. More distance means more trebuchets and/or crossbows the opponent has, means more sword attrition, which means, you really want cost reduction, and obviously, you want enough swords that they can't just charge headlong into you without a care, and cost reduction helps with that later on when resources start to run low before your economy kicks into full gear.
P-51 wrote: In a 4v4 it would be wiser to focus on the archers and swords and let the pocket use siege so he could support you.
Archers? Hmm...

Well, Crossbows are proven and good in Middle DM. However, since they take twice as long as a Trebuchet to produce, it's probably not the best idea to make a ton of them from wing. As wing in 4v4, if you're making any, you're making 3 archery ranges maximum, basically always after you've got your barracks and siege factories done (and, you do that with this civ, as if it starts to drag on a bit longer than expected you're going to want the extra opponent-sword-sniping power to prevent being overrun).

Long Bows are a joke in siege games. The opponent's swords will destroy them if they get in range, long bows barely do anything to the swords, and opposing Trebuchets will eat them for breakfast, because, even though Long Bows are much cheaper, Trebuchets only take 12 game seconds longer to build (base build time for both).

Cavalry Archers are better than long bows, but since your very next statement after the one in the above quote was "this will help you with the pop cap", you clearly can't be talking about them. But, I'm willing to assume you were' They take just as long to build as Long Bows, but they're still going to be eaten alive by treb/sword, and they don't really do very much to the swords.

There's essentially zero point in making CA or Long Bows in 4v4 Mid DM, and there's never any point in making Long Bows in Mid DM. The only reason I don't say there's never any point in making CA in Mid DM is that there is a single, solitary strategy that employs them along with Persians, but it's not in 4v4 for obvious reasons. Because you're not making CA or Long Bows, and you're not going to make a ton of Crossbows as wing, I don't really see how one could make archers as you suggest.
P-51 wrote: This will help you with the pop cap and also to be easier to organize your army which will be very useful when you get knight rushed.
Pop cap is not relevant in the short term in the first place, and you can get 2 archers for every trebuchet in terms of pop cap, unless we're talking Cav Archers, but you're simply *NOT* going to get 2 crossbows per trebuchet due to build time issues, and 2 long bows per trebuchet is not worth it.

As for organizing your army when you get knight rushed, this first assumes you'll get knight rushed. Either way, organizing your army is something that if you're not extremely proficient at, you have no business playing Deathmatch games at any decent level, so whether or not you're making archers to or trebuchets is irrelevant as far as organization goes.

As far as knight flood (i.e. knight rush) goes, it's an extremely aggressive strategy, but it's not surgical aggression, and you don't have any strategic options with it other than "all in". A competent player playing treb/sword start is going to beat it, and it's going to be extra easy to beat when the pocket's trebuchets start pounding on the knights as well. Basically, knight flood beats bad players who get flustered and mess up because they're getting flooded by knights, or who loose because they were playing sub-par before being flooded.

I will admit it'd certainly be easier to beat with Cav Archers (which you preclude due to population), although I would not use Long Bows still. Then again, when you see that your opponent is flooding you with knights you go "...gay, but on the bright side as long as I don't mess up, we've got our side", and although that may tempt you to WANT to make archers to make the gayness stop early, there's essentially no point in doing so--you're countering whats essentially a non-threat by making units that are useless to you in the future.
P-51 wrote:Building only archers and swords will also be cheaper and more efficient when fighting because you will be able to create a larger mass of units and do it faster and cheaper than your opponent will.
There are three attributes that essentially define a unit, power, or how it kills//what it kills, time to build, and cost. Cost is not relevant for early game 4v4 Deathmatch, so you're looking for the units that give you the best Power/time ratio. That unit is not the long bow. It's certainly the trebuchet.

Long bows hardly kill anything at all, because they suck. They take almost as long as the trebuchet to build, and although they're cheap, this is not relavent. Additionally, they cost 1 pop, and 2 are much weaker and less valuable than 1 treb. Trebuchets do tons of damage, and can rapidly kill heroes and buildings. I'll go with trebs.

You can't really create a large mass faster, yeah ok so you'll have slightly more guys in the same time, and if there's no fighting for a good while (good luck in 4v4 LOL), you're going to have a fair amount more guys for the same time. It doesn't matter though, because the opponent has trebs and you have long bows, and your long bows aren't doing anything to his siege, or his swords, or his crossbows if he makes them, and they're surely not sniping his hero, whereas his trebs are doing all of the following, and they're capable of killing buildings in seconds, whereas your longbows... aren't.
P-51 wrote: Let your ally worry about supporting you with siege, that's what pockets are there for.
The siege is made because it has the best power/time ratio, and, honestly, if you threw cost (resources and pop) in there as factors as well, trebuchets would still be some of the absolute best units in Middle.

More importantly, there's almost no additional cost in time to make the trebuchets, and the payoff is immense.

I don't even know where you get the idea that wings shouldn't make siege from, because, honestly, in any no rules Deathmatch game of basically any age that was commonly played, Dark, Middle, Ren, Indy, Modern... the wings are making siege, and in indy no s/r DM (LOL), the wings and pockets are making the closest thing they can to siege, hand cannons.
P-51 wrote: The civ points should be used more on your archers and other stuff rather than the siege.
Not really, because trebuchets are more valuable than all of them in this instance. Even if you could dump all the points on siege and magically make crossbows build in the same time as trebs, you'd keep the points on siege for trebs because they do something that xbows do not--they destroy buildings with ease, and being able to snipe your opponent's buildings means you can limit his production capacity (and you can do selectively based off how the game is going), meaning you make him much easier to overrun.
P-51 wrote:I would also question the mountain combat bonus but that is more of a personal preference I guess.
You have 4 spare points, and not much of value to put it on. Of the the things of value, mountain combat bonus wins, because taking and controlling hills is vital to winning.
Image

ak_47
Basic Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:34 am
Lobby Username: ak_47

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by ak_47 »

Elite wrote:Remember p51 this is Mid DM no rules, not that bullshit no siege crap you people played on AoC. You know, where you both mass catas and archers and whoever hero rapes first wins?
Elite pls remember that there used to be alot of players in aoc, who played mid dm no rules.
I kinda hated no r/s too since it killed mid dm no rules, but i also aknowledge that mid dm no r/s allowed players to use longbows and other ranged units more often.
Which in mid dm no rules they kinda sucked against Seige.
And also about the hero sniping, if you lose your hero then it is your fault for not moving it, out of the line of sight from the other player.
Omega wrote:I will admit it'd certainly be easier to beat with Cav Archers (which you preclude due to population), although I would not use Long Bows still. Then again, when you see that your opponent is flooding you with knights you go "...gay, but on the bright side as long as I don't mess up, we've got our side", and although that may tempt you to WANT to make archers to make the gayness stop early, there's essentially no point in doing so--you're countering whats essentially a non-threat by making units that are useless to you in the future.
from what i remember if you where using a sword/treb civ and you knew your opponent made knights, then you would immediatly make pikes and wall your base, and stay inside your base, why? well because knights basicly rapes anything if they are controlled good, and if they need an extra shield, you would usually make seige towers and draw your enemys attention towards the seige tower, while the knights kill their units. which would make it even harder to defend against knights.
anyways in 4v4, trebs + sword would lose a fight against knights in a open field battle. thats a given. since all mid dm players know knight civ counters sword + treb civ in 4v4.


the good side of your civ is that ive seen it vs sword + treb civ. and it works pretty good if you make a decent amount of crossbows. but since you got no cr you wont be able to get alot of trebs or crossbows.

Zeus
Epic Multiplayer Scenario Team Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Zeus »

That civ isnt bad at all, but like ak pointed out the CR kills you, but overall you can use it and work with it to preference.
Ak! fucking miss you man lol.
and El1te the majority of any good AOC dm player did/could play No rules, and many of them perfected it so no offense to you, i'd take someone like ak's advice over anyone here.

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Omega »

First off, all of you AoC players commenting from an AoC perspective, you're not understanding the fundamental purpose or strategy behind this civilization. Furthermore, you're assuming that we are playing on AoC, where, from all the other DM games I've seen there, you guys probably played your no rules DM with 20 citizens, whereas on EEC we played with 5. Additionally, I highly doubt that the Middle DM metagame was ever advanced on AoC as EEC, namely because it wasn't played as long before lame rules took over. That is not to say it wasn't quite advanced (although I have no way of knowing one way or the other), I just think it unlikely that it was AS advanced due to the timeframe involved, and this is essentially a moot point anyway as I'm certain minor variances between the two games, and the specific details of how the setting was played between the two games (map size, starting citizens) would lead to minor yet significant differences in play between the two anyway.

So, to everyone who didn't understand the purpose and strategy behind the civilization. The purpose is to be a highly aggressive wing civilization for 4 vs 4 games. The strategy is to attack your opponent from the second you get your first swords and trebs, and to selectively shut down portions of their production capacity via the killing of citizens and buildings so as to make them much more vulnerable to your onslaught of aggression. Obviously, just because you are playing very aggressively *DOES NOT* mean you're playing stupidly, and somehow a lot of players think these are somehow one and the same. Furthermore, swords and trebs are the staple units you're making, not crossbows. Crossbows are supplementary, which is why the only bonuses on them are build time decrease and range. Their function is twofold, to assist in keeping opposing swords off of your trebs, and in later game once your wing has been defeated or severely crippled, to greatly minimize the effect of ditching sword cost reduction in the civilization, until your economy makes up for this shortcoming almost entirely. To stress this point, you're not building legions of crossbows, you're building just enough to supplement your purposes, which leaves you with sufficient gold/wood to spend on trebs until you get your eco running.

I will agree that if your hero dies, especially in a DM game, it's almost always due to a mistake or series of mistakes in play, especially if we're talking middle no r/s (if we're talking say, an expert modern dm game, it's not all that uncommon for a hero to die through no fault, or little fault, of your own simply due to a heavy push at one front, or exceptionally good play from your opponent(s) at some point in the game, however your hero dying like this isn't exactly common, it's just not rare, either). From the handful of Mid DM no r/s games on AoC I've actually managed to play, however, I'm not certain Elite's observation of the first one to hero rape wins is necessarily inaccurate. Most of the players ended up loosing their hero relatively quickly due to poor control. None of them ever attempted to make anything resembling a decent economy, and they complained about the use of effective tactics that were only possible//exceedingly effective due to their relatively poor play, such as "base rape" (a.k.a. "attacking while away) and "wonder rape" (a.k.a. 'you killed my wonder that I wasn't even TRYING to defend with anything! How dare you!'). This may simply be a consequence of playing a very low amount of games, however, and ending up in noob games where the noobs were delusional enough to think they were top players (as noobs often are), as I didn't stick around long enough to find out since years of EEC DM had me going to the rules + the 20 citizens + the way people played//cried 'omg noob dm, this is unplayable'.

As for Knights, they were at one point in the evolution of eec mid DM an issue for players to deal with, and yes, making pikemen is advisable versus them if you're being flooded in early game. However, the metagame on EEC advanced to the point where against expert players, flooding knights simply would not work unless they fucked up in some way, as people's understanding of how to play against knights, as well as strategic building placement and micro skills had improved to the point that it just wasn't going to work. Walling was, and is not advisable, and never will be in EEC middle dm, and I'm guessing this is due to you guys either playing with 20 citizens, on a larger map, or both, and the reason for walling being inadvisable is that you'd never manage to complete it (your opponent would essentially be 'nice, free citizen kills for little unit expenditure, what a noob because it wouldn't even help him he managed to complete it'), and even if you did it wouldn't do any significant amount of good since the pocket is immediately backing their wing up with trebuchets+other units anyway, and trebs eat walls for breakfast. Knights outside of early game were never much of an issue, as players understood fairly early that if you kept your trebs at a sufficient spread and did not allow the knights to flank you, that you'd eat them for breakfast.
Image

Zeus
Epic Multiplayer Scenario Team Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Zeus »

You must not of played in games with any older players or anyone good for that matter. No No rules game i ever played in was given 20 cits..that would just be stupid. Since AOC came out any real DM player played 5 cit.
As far as No r/s, once you got better you realized the importance of hero control. THat often seperated some of the okay players from being better, was the lack of controlling there army all-together. If you allow your hero to get sniped, you have poor gaming control, because even if you just leave it standing at the back they will lose many archers running foward to try and snipe just that. I also don't like when people always think its all about cata archers. As much as i enjoyed no rules better, it did allow as ak said for more startegies and different play when rules were added. And there are MANY strats besides cata archers that would easily take that strat down. It is the same as when no r/s players assumethe only strat in no rules is to go Treb sword. They immediately regret that when someone goes xbow sword priests. or knight towers. As would anyone who said no r/s who says its all about archers cata if they would care to play me or anyone good in it.

I didnt discredit your civ at all, i've always had weird civs, personally, because i make them to my playing style etc. I never found that i was able to use many other peoples civs.

Elite
Advanced Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:37 pm
Lobby Username: Elite

Re: Middle DM 4 vs 4 Wing

Post by Elite »

lol zeus what exactly counters cata/archers in no r/s? The only other combos I ever saw the few times I played DM was massed ranged cav (CA/pers.) or knight massing. And both of those combos get countered by mass lb.

Post Reply

Return to “Deathmatch (DM)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests